lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch-2.3.40-pre6] kzalloc() (ala kmem_zalloc() of SVR4)
Bill Wendling wrote:
>
> Also sprach Matthew Wilcox:
> } Why do we have printk anyway? It serves the same purpose as printf and
> } is even tagged as `taking arguments like printf' for gcc's type-checking
> } benefit. It makes it harder to take large chunks of code and move it
> } to userspace for testing (ok, i can #define printk printf, but still).
> } Just Hysterical Raisins?

> Are you suggesting using printf instead? Surely you jest. libc is not
> compiled into the kernel, of course.

libc has absolutely nothing to do with a kernel patch which does
"s/printk/printf/"

However, I don't think the change is worth the hassle... Having code
which is common code between userspace and kernelspace is nice when
possible, but I don't believe in bending over backwards to support such
scenarios...

Jeff




--
Jeff Garzik | Andre the Giant has a posse.
Building 1024 |
MandrakeSoft, Inc. |
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:56    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans