[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1190319360.26101.154.camel@localhost>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:16:00 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
Cc: linux-tiny@...enic.com, Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
CE Linux Developers List <celinux-dev@...e.celinuxforum.org>,
Michael Opdenacker <michael@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [Announce] Linux-tiny project revival
On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 15:38 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> And so far no behavior has changed. But now the _fun_ part is, you can add a
> config symbol for "what is the minimum loglevel I care about?" Set that as a
> number from 0-9. And then you can define the printk to do:
>
> #define printk(level, str, ...) \
> do { \
> if (level < CONFIG_PRINTK_DOICARE) \
> actual_printk("<" #level ">" str, __VA_ARGS__); \
> } while(0);
>
> And viola (however you spell that, I think I'm using the stringed instrument
> But this doesn't _completely_ eliminate
> printks, so you can still get the panic() calls and such. You tweak precisly
> how much bloat you want, using the granularity information that's already
> there in the source code...
> Opinions?
I'd rather take the opportunity to convert all the printks to
use pr_<level>. That way, you can pick'n'choose if you want
arbitrary combinations of KERN_<level> compiled in or not.
-
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