[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH RESEND 1/3] printk: convert byte-buffer to variable-length record buffer
    On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Joe Perches <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 22:39 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:

    >> Nah, we can't do that. We need it to tell "here is your non-prefix to
    >> parse, leave the data behind alone".
    > That's where I think you're still a bit
    > uncertain how the _current_ printk system
    > works.
    > Your _new_ printk system should
    > have identical behavior.

    We must be at least as good as we are, sure.

    But the aim is to be *better* not to be *identical*, especially when
    things go wrong, and they do go wrong far too often in the current
    code. What we have today is really not good enough. We have a lot of
    context during logging (like the thread), and we should use it to make
    the best out of it _before_ we log the stuff away.

    >  Though if you
    > manage to use the call tree and current to
    > coalesce complete messages more correctly,
    > that'd be great.

    That's what we try. We just need to get all the details out of the
    peoples heads, which are nowhere written down, to make it happen. It's
    a bit of a painful process sometimes. :)

    The conversion from the "put all bytes in a bag and let's find out
    later what happened"-buffer to a real separated record buffer imposed
    some changes to the logic, and we need to restore/adapt some useful
    rules now, which could't be preserved 1:1. But I'm confident that we
    manage to get a better overall picture in the end.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-05-10 23:41    [W:0.023 / U:59.108 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site