[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjNZ40akqgnb1y=dSYv1fX2Wk1SGF5hAzuV2azi5oQ+Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 19:33:46 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: POC: Alternative solution: Re: [PATCH 0/4] printk: reimplement
LOG_CONT handling
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 4:52 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 15:46 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > This is why I think any discussion that says "people should buffer
> > their lines themselves and we should get rid if pr_cont()" is
> > fundamentally broken.
> >
> > Don't go down that hole. I won't take it. It's wrong.
>
> I don't think it's wrong per se.
It's *absolutely* and 100% wrong.
Yes, any random *user* of pr_cont() can decide to buffer on it's own.
But when the discussion is about printk() - the implementation, not
the users - then it's complete and utter BS to talk about trying to
get rid of pr_cont().
See the difference?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists