[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+1xoqcAjEh5LT42NpjoE0998KUecY6EWQp4FM0_CY8MPyLmbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 06:11:51 +0200
From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartmann <greg@...ah.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/3] printk: convert byte-buffer to variable-length
record buffer
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> KERN_CONT should not be needed if the previous printk didn't have a final "\n".
>
> We made it easier to use printk for a reason a few months ago. The new
> rules are:
>
> - If you have a KERN_<loglevel>, it *always* starts a new line, the
> obvious exception being KERN_CONT
>
> - the loglevels *only* matter at the start of the printk - so if you
> have '\n' embedded in a single printk, that changes nothing
> what-so-ever. It's not line-based.
>
> - if you didn't have a '\n', and don't have a loglevel, KERN_CONT is implied.
>
> Quite frankly, those three rules (a) make sense and (b) make things easy.
Is there a reason to keep KERN_CONT under this set of rules at all?
I'm guessing that there are very few places that have a final '\n' but
still want to use KERN_CONT, and even in that case it should be
trivially easy to fix them up.
Besides that, from what I understand, KERN_CONT isn't really needed.
--
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