Messages in this thread | | | From | Denis Vlasenko <> | Subject | Re: Event logging vs enhancing printk | Date | Wed, 10 Apr 2002 09:24:02 -0200 |
| |
On 9 April 2002 18:49, Brian Beattie wrote: > I would prefer to see effort expended on fixing printk/klogd...off the > top of my head: > > - make printk a macro that prepends file/function/line to the message. > - fix printk calls: messages with consistent format, calls in the right > places, with the "correct" information. > - postprocessing tools for analysing the logs. > > I would say that this is probably less work than implementing evlog, > much less work to maintain, and provide generally better performance.
Sounds ok for me.
It will be difficult to push it into mainline kernel. I tried to fix loglevels in some printks. Patches were _trivial_ but nevertheless they weren't taken. -- vda - 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/
| |