lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: sched: restore sanity

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 09:22 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 16:19 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 07:05 -0800, San Mehat wrote:
> > > > >> Probably, but the rest is just as annoying, pr_* is crap.
> > > > Oh? Out of curiosity whats wrong with it?
> > > That's what should be asked of printk().
> >
> > pr_<level> offers some things printk cannot:
> >
> > o standardization, eliminates frequent missing KERN_ levels
> > and missing/typo/misspelled module prefixes
>
> There's other ways of fixing that, one way is to make it a proper
> function argument, like:
>
> printk(char level, char *fmt, ...);
>
> Which is something we have precedent for too in fprintf() and syslog().
>
> > o visually shorter, fewer chars used, less 80 char wrapping
>
> Fuck me senseless, visually less obvious too.
>
> > o finer grained ability to eliminate unnecessary messages
> > for embedded systems
>
> How is that not possible with another solution.
>
> > o standardized mechanism to prefix messages with module/function
>
> Who fucking gives a shit, that is the very thing that made me send the
> revert.
>
> > o eventual code reduction via use of a singleton instead of
> > duplicated module/function names
>
> text reduction?
>
> > o eventual dynamic_debug styled control of prefix by
> > module/function
>
> Feh, who cares, printk output simply shouldn't be frequent enough to
> need filtering, there's much better solutions for that.
>
> > There are quite of number of arbitrarily named module wrapper
> > macros and functions that build on printk.
>
> Then remove them all..
>
> Are you really arguing to fully deprecate printk()? If not this is all
> going to be useless since I'll simply keep using printk().

I dont mind that strongly but you (and Mike) objecting to it so forcefully
clearly tips the balance against the pr_*() lines in sched.c so i've queued up
your revert in the scheduler tree.

( I've Cc:-ed Linus and Andrew, in case they care one way or another. )

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-20 18:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans