Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: sched: restore sanity | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:28:23 +0100 |
| |
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(). > > And as long as we're not going to depricate printk() -- any attempt > thereof will meet with fierce resistance from yours truly -- its all a > futile exercise at best, and breaking scripts habits and patches at > worst. > > I might be strange, but if I want to print something in C I write > print[fk]() and be done with it, there's no reason what so ever to > introduce fancy wankery for this. > > We try to stick to ANSI-C as much as possible, we've got > kalloc,kfree,strcmp,strnlen and all the other 'regular' C bits, > deviating from that serves no purpose but seed confusion. > > If driver folks feel the need for dumb-ass wrappers because they can't > write printk() then maybe, otoh if they can't do that, then wtf are they > doing writing drivers anyway. > > But I feel this has no place in the core kernel at all, esp when its > getting in the way of things without offering a single benefit.
FWIW, I agree.
You can have my printk when you pry it from my cold dead fingers ;-)
-Mike
| |