[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <598D5675D34BE349929AF5EDE9B03E27014FA178@az33exm24.fsl.freescale.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:32:37 -0700
From: "Medve Emilian-EMMEDVE1" <Emilian.Medve@...escale.com>
To: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<i2c@...sensors.org>, <linux-omap-open-source@...ux.omap.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] Make the pr_*() family of macros in kernel.hcomplete
Hello Joe,
> I expect all the kernel logging functions to be
> overhauled eventually.
>
> I'd prefer a mechanism that somehow supports
> identifying complete messages. I think the new
> pr_<level> functions are not particularly useful
> without a mechanism to avoid or identify multiple
> processors or threads interleaving partial in-progress
> multiple statement messages.
I agree with you that one can think and propose an improved kernel
logging system, but that might be an incremental effort. For now,
patches like the ones you or I sent are a step in the general direction
of improving kernel logging, fix an inconsistency and increase the
probability of people logging kernel message as intended (i.e. at a
minimum, with a loglevel). I don't think that this hurts or delays the
perceived urgency of getting a sub-optimal kernel logging mechanism...
> At some point, sooner or later, the logging functions
> will be improved. Apparently, more likely later.
I'm not sure way must it be later or why the resistance about a little
better and sooner.
Cheerios,
Emil.
-
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