lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch-2.3.40-pre6] kzalloc() (ala kmem_zalloc() of SVR4)
    Bill Wendling wrote:
    >
    > Also sprach Matthew Wilcox:
    > } Why do we have printk anyway? It serves the same purpose as printf and
    > } is even tagged as `taking arguments like printf' for gcc's type-checking
    > } benefit. It makes it harder to take large chunks of code and move it
    > } to userspace for testing (ok, i can #define printk printf, but still).
    > } Just Hysterical Raisins?

    > Are you suggesting using printf instead? Surely you jest. libc is not
    > compiled into the kernel, of course.

    libc has absolutely nothing to do with a kernel patch which does
    "s/printk/printf/"

    However, I don't think the change is worth the hassle... Having code
    which is common code between userspace and kernelspace is nice when
    possible, but I don't believe in bending over backwards to support such
    scenarios...

    Jeff




    --
    Jeff Garzik | Andre the Giant has a posse.
    Building 1024 |
    MandrakeSoft, Inc. |

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:56    [W:2.814 / U:0.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site