linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PATCH] driver core patches for 3.5-rc1

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 22 May 2012 15:01:58 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] driver core patches for 3.5-rc1 - try 2

(resending cc'ing lkml)
(Also, apologies about no in-reply-to, lkml.org is down)

While there are several things I like about the
printk modifications, (binary header, delta time,
slightly better partial message deinterleaving,
global msg_id, kmsg is ok too), I am concerned
about the utility and expectations for the new
[v]printk_emit functions.

I think it is not really ready to be merged
at this time.

The commit sequencing was unclean.

The original commit originally required KERN_CONT
and it was modified by another commit to return
to the current behavior.

What really are the expectations and true use-cases
for [v]printk_emit?

How is it really better that what is available now?

Perhaps it would be better to respin all the
printk modifications without adding [v]printk_emit
and have the [v]printk_emit bits debated a bit more.

--
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/