Attached is the patch from last week which provides the sysrq system
with the following:
a toggleable 'sticky' flag in /proc, which makes the sysrq key work on bad
keyboards, and through bad KVMs.
the ability to set which key in /proc, which makes the sysrq key work on
system _without_ a 'sysrq' key; like bad KVMs.
I've gotten no tracktion on this in a week, so I'm resubmitting it.
--
Crutcher <[email protected]>
GCS d--- s+:>+:- a-- C++++$ UL++++$ L+++$>++++ !E PS+++ PE Y+ PGP+>++++
R-(+++) !tv(+++) b+(++++) G+ e>++++ h+>++ r* y+>*$
Followup to: <[email protected]>
By author: Crutcher Dunnavant <[email protected]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Attached is the patch from last week which provides the sysrq system
> with the following:
>
> a toggleable 'sticky' flag in /proc, which makes the sysrq key work on bad
> keyboards, and through bad KVMs.
>
> the ability to set which key in /proc, which makes the sysrq key work on
> system _without_ a 'sysrq' key; like bad KVMs.
>
> I've gotten no tracktion on this in a week, so I'm resubmitting it.
>
I think doing this through procfs might be reasonable, but a kernel
command line option would be absolutely mandatory. If things are
crappy you might not get to the point of fidding with /proc.
Also, I really think SysRq has nothing to do under "Kernel
Hacking/Kernel Debugging". More than anything else it's a system
administration feature.
-hpa
--
<[email protected]> at work, <[email protected]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <[email protected]>
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>Followup to: <[email protected]>
>By author: Crutcher Dunnavant <[email protected]>
>In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
>>Attached is the patch from last week which provides the sysrq system
>>with the following:
>>
>>a toggleable 'sticky' flag in /proc, which makes the sysrq key work
on bad
>>keyboards, and through bad KVMs.
>>
>>the ability to set which key in /proc, which makes the sysrq key work on
>>system _without_ a 'sysrq' key; like bad KVMs.
>>
>>I've gotten no tracktion on this in a week, so I'm resubmitting it.
>>
>
>I think doing this through procfs might be reasonable, but a kernel
>command line option would be absolutely mandatory. If things are
>crappy you might not get to the point of fidding with /proc.
>
>Also, I really think SysRq has nothing to do under "Kernel
>Hacking/Kernel Debugging". More than anything else it's a system
>administration feature.
>
> -hpa
>
Also, when configuring the kernel you can decide not to have /proc
mounted (although this is very rare), but it might happen, if somebody
decided not to use it, so as suggested, I think a kernel command line
option would be nice.
Balbir
++ 10/10/01 14:22 +0530 - BALBIR SINGH:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> >Followup to: <[email protected]>
> >By author: Crutcher Dunnavant <[email protected]>
> >In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> >>Attached is the patch from last week which provides the sysrq system
> >>with the following:
> >>
> >>a toggleable 'sticky' flag in /proc, which makes the sysrq key work
> on bad
> >>keyboards, and through bad KVMs.
> >>
> >>the ability to set which key in /proc, which makes the sysrq key work on
> >>system _without_ a 'sysrq' key; like bad KVMs.
> >>
> >>I've gotten no tracktion on this in a week, so I'm resubmitting it.
> >>
> >
> >I think doing this through procfs might be reasonable, but a kernel
> >command line option would be absolutely mandatory. If things are
> >crappy you might not get to the point of fidding with /proc.
> >
> >Also, I really think SysRq has nothing to do under "Kernel
> >Hacking/Kernel Debugging". More than anything else it's a system
> >administration feature.
> >
> > -hpa
> >
>
> Also, when configuring the kernel you can decide not to have /proc
> mounted (although this is very rare), but it might happen, if somebody
> decided not to use it, so as suggested, I think a kernel command line
> option would be nice.
>
> Balbir
This gets into a realm of advanced/robust features which I want to add
when 2.5 opens up. I will remember it, but right now I not seeing any
traction on this at all.
--
Crutcher <[email protected]>
GCS d--- s+:>+:- a-- C++++$ UL++++$ L+++$>++++ !E PS+++ PE Y+ PGP+>++++
R-(+++) !tv(+++) b+(++++) G+ e>++++ h+>++ r* y+>*$