[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120320010401.GA14363@thunk.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:04:01 -0400
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, anca.emanuel@...il.com,
adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] ext4: Use pr_fmt and pr_<level>
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:46:13AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 14:31 -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 02:14:02PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> > I've *already* gone far beyond the pr_fmt standardization, with the
> > ext4_msg() and ext4_error() system
>
> Please note the defects that were recently corrected there
> which occurred because of a lack of standardization both
> in prefix and termination style.
For debugging printk's that are #ifdef'ed for anyone other than ext4
developers and can't be enabled via CONFIG_*. Yawn.
> Any logging system, with or without an external notification
> mechanism, will be painful. pr_<foo> is at least a small
> start. I'd like to see a notification mechanism, perhaps ala
> netlink/ethtool to extend pr_<foo> or another call. A lot of
> these printk/pr_<level> uses really could generate notifications.
Yes, but we can't do structured notifications with the current
pr_<foo>. So why change literally tens of thousands of callsites when
in order to really realize the full promise of structured
notifications, we'll have to change them *again*?
- Ted
--
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