linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 2/9] ext4: Use pr_fmt and pr

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:31:34 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	joe@...ches.com, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] ext4: Use pr_fmt and pr_<level>

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:12:11AM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> 
> It also allows you to modify pr_fmt at the top of the file or
> elsewhere and have it influence the output, as just one example
> of how it's better.
> 
> As a maintainer you can only take one of two positions:
> 
> 1) Accept all properly written patches that convert code over to use
>    the new and recommended way of doing things, such as pr_info() et
>    al.

Recommended by *who*?!?  Who dictated that this is the best way to go?

And in the past we've always allowed for local variations of style;
it's never been a strict style nazism.  Linus has always given
maintainers latitude and has frowned on patch churn for churn's sake.

For goodness sake we still have get_fs() and set_fs() in the kernel
code even though we haven't used the actual fs segment register in
over a decade.

And we're arguing over "there must be only one true logging
interface?!?".  This isn't Highlander.

						- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html