[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091221014848.7833c875@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 01:48:48 +0100
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, San Mehat <san@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sched: restore sanity
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:21:50 -0800
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 19:17 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:22:23 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> > wrote:
> > > What are the negatives of using pr_<level>?
> > pr_ is really just for "I am a driver and want a single line message
> > out in a standardized format".
> > Nothing wrong with that.
> >
> > But here you are changing fundamental kernel outputs in the style
> > of an oops message. Multiline, complex and machine parsed things...
>
> The prefixing was trivial to change.
> No other output was modified.
but you still have a "multiline message" (the atomic schedule oops like
dump) that now is half printk half pr_*... where pr_ is just a silly
wrapper around printk now that the prefixing etc is gone.
>
> I believe kernel log output is specifically _not_ guaranteed
> and should not be so guaranteed to remain stable across
> versions.
changing it gratuitously is bad though. There *are* scripts out there
parsing oopses. Yes they change as kernels change, but changing
the output of oopses for silly reasons is just hostile
>
>
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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