[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1336682772.29763.6.camel@joe2Laptop>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 13:46:12 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>
Cc: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartmann <greg@...ah.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/3] printk: convert byte-buffer to
variable-length record buffer
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 22:39 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 16:14 -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> >> Is there any difference in any of the cases in terms of how printk's
> >> that are prefixed with KERN_CONT versus a printk that does not have
> >> any KERN_* prefix? If so, is there value in keeping KERN_CONT?
> >
> > As far as I know, no.
> >
> > It is a useful marker to show where prints
> > are actually continued.
> >
> > #define KERN_CONT ""
> >
> > would save a small amount of text.
>
> Nah, we can't do that. We need it to tell "here is your non-prefix to
> parse, leave the data behind alone".
That's where I think you're still a bit
uncertain how the _current_ printk system
works. Your _new_ printk system should
have identical behavior. Though if you
manage to use the call tree and current to
coalesce complete messages more correctly,
that'd be great.
--
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