linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint)

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200710042059.25721.rob@landley.net>
Date:	Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:59:25 -0500
From:	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Cc:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
	Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Dick Streefland <dick.streefland@...ium.nl>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com>,
	Jesse Barnes <jesse.barnes@...el.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>,
	Emil Medve <Emilian.Medve@...escale.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux@...izon.com" <linux@...izon.com>,
	Miguel Ojeda <maxextreme@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint)

On Thursday 04 October 2007 3:17:03 pm Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:04:07 +0200 Vegard Nossum wrote:
> > Description: This patch largely implements the kprint API as previously
> > posted to the LKML and described in Documentation/kprint.txt (see patch).
> >
> > The main purpose of this change is provide a unified logging API to the
> > kernel and at the same time make it easy to add extensions, now and
> > later.
> >
> > My changes and additions are as follows:
>
> $ diffstat -p1 -w70 kprint.patch
...
>  40 files changed, 1660 insertions(+), 72 deletions(-)

I started this thread by posting an idea I had for shrinking the kernel by 
allowing more code to be configured out.  The API change was exactly one new 
parameter, with a direct 1->1 mapping from the old API to the new one, which 
was trivial to convert and which the compiler would catch if you missed one.

The result of the discussion is a patch adding 1600 lines to the kernel, 
without removing anything.

Last I checked, the current prink() worked just fine.  Why is this _not_ the 
dreaded "infrastructure in search of a use"?  What exactly can we _not_ do 
with the current code?  What does this allow us to remove and simplify?

I'm confused about what people are trying to accomplish here...

Rob
-- 
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
  - Ken Thompson.
-
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/