Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:36:33 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/8] replacing/fixing printk with pr_debug/pr_info in arch/i386 - intro |
| |
* Daniele Pizzoni <auouo@tin.it> wrote:
> On dom, 2004-10-17 at 18:19, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > [...] > > > > 1) be careful, there is no inconsistency here. It's a printk that doesnt > > end in a "\n" in the first line. > > You're right, my fault and a big one! > > Anyway I'm going to ask some questions.
> There's nothing wrong with Dprintk or dprintk. I simply found a > request to do so on the janitors TODO list. I found out that in > kernel.h there was really a pr_debug macro and I used it.
ok.
> The rationale is that in the kernel there are lots of custom dprintk, > Dprintk, DPRINTK, etc that we need a bit of housekeeping, I think. > Anyway I didn't like pr_info either (why not a pr_notice...?) but I > used it: it was in kernel.h I assumed it was for good.
ok - pr_debug() is ok i think for the APIC code. It pairs well with the other variants: pr_notice(), etc.
> I need a bit of advice now: should I forget about printks' levels, > consistency and focus on other issues or with a bit of work these > patches may became worth of?
i'd suggest to first do the Dprintk -> pr_debug replacement patch with as few output changes as possible. (output changes are unavoidable when converting a \n-less printout.) Then do any format cleanups in a separate patch.
(some of your other comments about 'spurious' whitespaces need a double-check too, sometimes they are done for formatting reasons. So always take a look at the log output before changing it.)
Ingo - 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/
| |