[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47949876.6070001@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:04:54 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
CC: randy.dunlap@...cle.com, daniel.ritz-ml@...ssonline.ch,
jeff@...zik.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] printk: implement printk_header() and merging printk,
take #2
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 02:13:52PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> In a nutshell, printk_header() lets you do the following atomically
>> (against other messages).
>>
>> code:
>> printk(KERN_INFO "ata1.00: ", "line0\nline1\nline2\n");
>>
>> output:
>> <6>ata1.00: line0
>> <6> line1
>> <6> line2
>
> I think this is a really bad idea. It's much better to have:
>
> <6>ata1.00: line0
> <6>ata1.00: line1
> <6>ata1.00: line2
>
> That way you can grep for ata1.00 and get all messages relevant to that
> device.
It has some pros and cons. Having indentation makes things easier on
human eyes but more difficult on scripts, but not too difficult -
indented lines can easily be matched with a bit of scripting. Changing
the behavior is easy but I'm still inclined toward indentation because
printing header every line loses information about message boundaries.
Maybe there's a way to satisfy both like omitting the separator from the
second line on.
ata1.00: line0
ata1.00 line1
ata1.00 line2
Hmm... Any better ideas?
--
tejun
--
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