[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 11:30:02 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Convert timekeeping core to use printk_deferred
(v2)
On Fri, 2 May 2014 16:05:36 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Would "printk_deferred_once" be more logical than
> "printk_once_deferred"? Think so. It's (((printk(deferred(once))),
> not (((printk(once(deferred))).
Or printk_once_removed()? Or does that only deal with cousins?
-- Steve
--
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