linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET] printk: implement printk_header() and merging printk, take #3

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]

Date:	Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:36:12 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	jeff@...zik.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	jengelh@...putergmbh.de, matthew@....cx, randy.dunlap@...cle.com,
	daniel.ritz-ml@...ssonline.ch, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] printk: implement printk_header() and merging printk,
 take #3

Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> printk is a special case, I think.  It's the primary logging/debugging
>>> method which can't fail and as it's mostly interpreted by human beings
>>> (and developers in problematic cases), it has different maneuvering room
>>> on errors - ie. it's far better to print messages w/o header or proper
>>> log level than failing to print, which is quite different requirements
>>> from other components.
>> Andrew, any more comments or suggestions on how to proceed on this?
> 
> Nope.
> 
>>  One
>> way or the other, I think this is a problem worth solving.
> 
> There are a lot of such problems ;)

So, I guess it's NACK w/o suggested alternatives, right?

-- 
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/