![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 02:12:59AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > Josef Sipek <jsipek@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> wrote: > > That's something to watch out for...If you say have: > > > > printk(KERN_DEBUG "fooo....."); > > do_foo(); > > printk(KERN_DEBUG "done.\n"); > > dont do it. It is better to have the time stamps for both and to have atomic > prints. First of all, the above code is to just illustrate a point. And as a matter of fact it may not even work if some other kernel thread prints something while do_foo() is executing, the whole thing will get screwed up. If I remember correctly, I the second line of the "sample" code, will _NOT_ produce a timestamp. So, the output will be: [1234567.123456] fooo.....<7>done. where, the timestamp is that of the first printk. > In fact I would disallow this and add automatic linebreaks. I wouldn't go that far. I'd just let the kernel janitors people have fun with the existing code :) Jeff. - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-01-06 01:37 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||