[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1504231464.2786.52.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:04:24 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: printk: what is going on with additional newlines?
On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 10:40 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (08/29/17 22:24), Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > In 4.13-rc, printk("foo"); printk("bar"); seems to produce
> > > > foo\nbar. That's... quite surprising/unwelcome. What is going on
> > > > there? Are timestamps responsible?
[]
> > You are welcome not add checkpatch rules to prevent such code from being
> > merged...
Pavel, what does this mean?
> well... just a note, I personally developed a new habit - use
> pr_err/pr_cont/etc macros instead of explicit printk(KERN_FOO "...").
> may be this can work for you. and we _probably_ need to advertise
> pr_foo() more.
As well as convert the macros to functions
to save some .text too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists