lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Event logging vs enhancing printk
Date
On 8 April 2002 21:18, Martin J. Bligh wrote:

[snip]

> where printk_evlog calls printk_raw, then logs an "enhanced" version of
> the printk message to the *event logging* subsystem (not
> /var/log/messages), including process PID (0 or -1 if in_interrupt() ),
> file, line number, function, cpu number, accurate time stamp, etc, etc.

[snip]

As I understand, Linus accepts new features only if they are improving kernel
in some vital area significantly (for example, Ingo's new scheduler).

If he has a feeling that existing subsystem is adequate, he is unlikely to
take replacements and intrusive enhancements (example: kbuild 2.5).
Something along the lines "it is does not broke _enough_, don't rewrite it".

(that's only IMHO, Linus didn't say it AFAIK)

You'll need to show that "enhanced" printk/evlog is significant improvement
and is worth the trouble. That won't be easy.

That said, I wish you luck.
--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.307 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site