| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:19:47 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: San Mehat <san@...gle.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: sched: restore sanity 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. 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. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists