On Aug 7 2007 09:10, Joe Perches wrote:
>On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 18:47 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
>> On 8/4/2007, "Jan Engelhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Ugh. What do we have printk for then? I do not like this.
>> >For pr_debug() it makes sense because its semantics change with
>> >-DDEBUG and -UDEBUG, but for these pr_()s it does not seem so.
>> I think I agree with Jan here, I see no fundamental need for these
>> additional macros. But if they are really added, then they should follow
>> the same standard as pr_debug() and pr_info(), that is: no "\n" added
>> automatically. Otherwise this will become quite messy.
>
>2 reasons:
>
>This change will eventually isolate multiple line
>printk messages and allow easier insertion of
>
>printk_block_start
>printks
>printk_block_end
>
>so that multiple line messages are kept together in the message logs.
They are not kept together today, so I do not see how that will change.
Locking the printk buffer between _start and _end? No thanks, I don't
have overlapping messages that often.
Or what is it actually that you are trying to accomplish?
Jan
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
