lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: sched: restore sanity
    From
    On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> 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.

    -san

    > 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
    san@google.com


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-12-20 16:39    [W:0.044 / U:0.136 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site