From: Petr Mladek
> Sent: 20 August 2020 11:16
...
> Now that I think about it. This is the biggest problem with any temporary
> buffer
> for pr_cont() lines. I am more and more convinced that we should just
> _keep the current behavior_. It is not ideal. But sometimes mixed
> messages are always better than lost ones.
Maybe a marker to say 'more expected' might be useful.
OTOH lack of a trailing '\n' probably signifies that a
pr_cont() is likely to be next.
Unexpected pr_cont() could be output with a leading "... "
to help indicate the message is a continuation.
> That said, some printk() API using local buffer would be still
> valuable for pieces of code where people really want to avoid
> mixed lines. But it should be optional and people should be
> aware of the risks.
That could be very useful if it supported multi-line output.
Thing like the stack backtrace code could use it avoid
the mess that happens when multiple processes generate
tracebacks at the same time.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT,
UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
