lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: POC: Alternative solution: Re: [PATCH 0/4] printk: reimplement LOG_CONT handling
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 4:52 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 15:46 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > This is why I think any discussion that says "people should buffer
> > their lines themselves and we should get rid if pr_cont()" is
> > fundamentally broken.
> >
> > Don't go down that hole. I won't take it. It's wrong.
>
> I don't think it's wrong per se.

It's *absolutely* and 100% wrong.

Yes, any random *user* of pr_cont() can decide to buffer on it's own.

But when the discussion is about printk() - the implementation, not
the users - then it's complete and utter BS to talk about trying to
get rid of pr_cont().

See the difference?

Linus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-15 23:56    [W:0.130 / U:1.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site