linux-kernel - Re: printf vs. printk (was Re: Side-effect free printk?)

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>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 05 Dec 2014 07:24:54 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, cocci <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: printf vs. printk (was Re: Side-effect free printk?)

On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 11:32 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> BTW... All the time I'm programming in kernel, I use printf(), and
> when hacking userspace, I use printk().
> 
> Nasty.
> 
> Given that printf() and printk() have exactly the same behaviour,
> could we allow printf() in kernel? Now... printk()s are usually
> removed before merging the driver, so code will not see much change,
> but it will certainly result in less 4-letter words while developing.

My preference would be to eventually eliminate printk
altogether but I don't see a real problem adding 
	#define printf printk
to include/linux/printk.h

but

--
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/