[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181217154056.GA515@tigerII.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 00:40:56 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: Add caller information to printk() output.
On (12/17/18 15:54), Petr Mladek wrote:
> Now, I always felt that the "from" name was a bit strange but
> nothing better came to my mind until today.
Could be printk_caller, could be printk_origin. I don't have strong
preferences.
> I would like to rename "from" to "caller", see the patch below.
> If you agree, I could push it on top or I could even squash it
> into the original patch.
Can we please squash or, better yet, ask Tetsuo to resend a new, renamed
version? An immediate follow up patch that completely renames a just added
feature feels like as if we failed to communicate it the usual way.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists