Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:49:18 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Erik Jacobson <erikj@sgi.com>, Matthew Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pagg@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Process Notification / pnotify
Message-Id: <20051003124918.2a65ef41.pj@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <20051003184644.GA19106@sgi.com>
References: <20051003184644.GA19106@sgi.com>
Organization: SGI
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1239
Lines: 31

Hmmm ... I notice with interest two notification patches posted in
the last few days to lkml:

  Matthew Helsley's Process Events Connector (posted 28 Sep 2005)
  Erik Jacobson's pnotify (posted 3 Oct 2005)

I suspect Matthew and Erik will both instantly hate me for asking, but
does it make sense to integrate these two?

If I understand these two proposals correctly:

    Helsley adds hooks in fork, exec, id change, and exit, to pass
    events to userspace.

    Jacobson adds hooks in fork, exec and exit, to pass events to
    kernel routines and loadable modules.

Perhaps, just brainstorming here, it would make sense for Halsley to
register with pnotify instead of adding his own hooks in parallel.
This presumes that pnotify is accepted into the kernel, and that
pnotify adds the id change hook that Helsley requires.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/