[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: sched: restore sanity
    On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 7:19 AM, 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.

    Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.


    > 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.

    San Mehat
    Staff Software Engineer
    Google Inc.
    o: 650-253-7422
    c: 408-382-1249

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-12-20 16:39    [W:0.024 / U:68.880 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site