Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: Large block device patch, part 1 of 9 | Date | Thu, 5 Sep 2002 06:05:17 +0200 |
| |
On Thursday 05 September 2002 03:31, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 02:38:58AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > The thing is, I don't see why we should be building castles and cathedrals > > around printk. Just cast to the wider value, if you get it wrong you have > > lost exactly what? Are people feeding the output of dmesg into scripts > > that their systems depend upon? If so, we need to let evolution do its > > work. > > Why do it the broken way when you can do it a non-broken way? Arguing in > favour of having it broken by design isn't something I really understand.
Because you're only fixing the printk, and with an inadequate solution at that. Could we please fix something that matters?
-- Daniel - 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/
| |