[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] teach netconsole how to do syslog
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 12:26:46PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:11:01 -0500,
> Matt Mackall <> wrote:
> >Yep, we get one UDP packet per printk currently, which works for most
> >things, but not everything. This could be changed to a buffered
> >approach, but that breaks one of my favorite debugging techniques -
> >adding an alphabet soup of single-character printks to trace tricky
> >call paths.
> >
> >So we could add a __printk that doesn't flush to outputs for stuff
> >like the above, or just live with it.
> Other way round. Keep printk as is and use a buffered approach for
> printk over netconsole. netconsole gets complete lines which is what
> you want 99.9% of the time. Add __printk or printk_unbuffered for the
> .1% of debugging output that really wants unbuffered output.

I think it's a bit too radical. The only user who cares is netconsole,
and then only when fed to syslogd. Using a client like netcat, the
current behavior is what you want. So while I think this might have
been the way to do it in the first place, changing the behavior of
every printk in the system in a way that might prevent information
from making it to the console in a crash seems like much more trouble
than removing the flush for the few cases that want to do multiple
printks per line and are making a minor mess with syslog. The
non-flushing __printk approach let's us choose when and where we want
to remove flushes.

But my current position is "just live with it".

Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean