[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <39129.81.207.0.53.1190910941.squirrel@secure.samage.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:35:41 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Indan Zupancic" <indan@....nu>
To: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: "Rob Landley" <rob@...dley.net>,
"Michael Opdenacker" <michael@...e-electrons.com>,
linux-tiny@...enic.com,
"CE Linux Developers List" <celinux-dev@...e.celinuxforum.org>,
"linux kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Announce] Linux-tiny project revival
On Thu, September 27, 2007 09:00, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Assuming that we want to go down that road, I think you can do better with
> more evil macro magic, by using something along the lines of
>
> #define KERN_NOTICE "<5>",
>
> #define PRINTK_CONTINUED "",
>
> #define printk(level, str, ...) \
> do { \
> if (sizeof(level) == 1) /* continued printk */\
> actual_printk(str, __VA_ARGS__); \
> else if ((level[1] - '0') < CONFIG_PRINTK_DOICARE) \
> actual_printk(level str, __VA_ARGS__); \
> } while(0);
>
> Then you don't have to change every single printk in the kernel, but
> only those that don't currently come with a log level. More importantly,
> you can do the conversion without a flag day, by spreading (an empty)
> PRINTK_CONTINUED in places that do need a printk without a log level.
The problem is, how do you know whether to print a continued printk or not?
It depends on the loglevel of the first printk.
So besides compile-time parsing of the source code, replacing printk with
loglevel specific alternatives (one way or the other) seems the only option.
Greetings,
Indan
-
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