Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:16:20 +0200 (CEST) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: + remove-current-defines-and-uses-of-pr_err-add-pr_emerg.patch added to -mm tree |
| |
On Aug 7 2007 09:10, Joe Perches wrote: >On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 18:47 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: >> On 8/4/2007, "Jan Engelhardt" <jengelh@computergmbh.de> wrote: >> >Ugh. What do we have printk for then? I do not like this. >> >For pr_debug() it makes sense because its semantics change with >> >-DDEBUG and -UDEBUG, but for these pr_()s it does not seem so. >> I think I agree with Jan here, I see no fundamental need for these >> additional macros. But if they are really added, then they should follow >> the same standard as pr_debug() and pr_info(), that is: no "\n" added >> automatically. Otherwise this will become quite messy. > >2 reasons: > >This change will eventually isolate multiple line >printk messages and allow easier insertion of > >printk_block_start >printks >printk_block_end > >so that multiple line messages are kept together in the message logs.
They are not kept together today, so I do not see how that will change. Locking the printk buffer between _start and _end? No thanks, I don't have overlapping messages that often.
Or what is it actually that you are trying to accomplish?
Jan -- - 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/
| |