[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:0.081 / U:44.712 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site