linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] add "notime" boot option

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:	Wed, 23 May 2007 22:08:28 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
CC:	Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add "notime" boot option

Rene Herman wrote:
> On 05/23/2007 10:55 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 
>>>>> That's a good source of confusion.  To me, "notime" means something
>>>>>  like "don't bother calculating time", instead of the proposed 
>>>>> behavior.  Can't it be something like 'nologts' (no log timestamps)
>>>>>  or nots or notimestamps or nologtime instead
>>>>
>>>> "nologtime" is OK with me.  or does it confuse people in a different
>>>> way?  Anyone else?
>>>
>>> The CONFIG option is called CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME. How about 
>>> "noprintktime"? At least nicely to the point...
>>
>> Actually I'm concerned about total kernel command line length,
>> so using option names that are "long" when short will do is not good IMO.
>>
>> I.e., I can easily overflow a 255-byte command line length buffer,
>> so Shorter is Better.
> 
> Okay. I would by the way not be against turning the timestamping off by 
> default and turning it _on_ with a "timestamps" or "logtime" or whatever 
> option. The information is sometimes handy for seeing the (clustering 
> of) event times so I've been compiling it in for a while on some boxes 
> but in the majority case for me it's noise taking up printk real estate...

But CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME is what controls its "default" (build-time) value.
I.e., users can control that.

I would be OK with removing that config option and only being able to
enable it, but I doubt that this would have much support.  ;)

-- 
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/