Hello Joe,
> I expect all the kernel logging functions to be > overhauled eventually. > > I'd prefer a mechanism that somehow supports > identifying complete messages. I think the new > pr_<level> functions are not particularly useful > without a mechanism to avoid or identify multiple > processors or threads interleaving partial in-progress > multiple statement messages. I agree with you that one can think and propose an improved kernel logging system, but that might be an incremental effort. For now, patches like the ones you or I sent are a step in the general direction of improving kernel logging, fix an inconsistency and increase the probability of people logging kernel message as intended (i.e. at a minimum, with a loglevel). I don't think that this hurts or delays the perceived urgency of getting a sub-optimal kernel logging mechanism... > At some point, sooner or later, the logging functions > will be improved. Apparently, more likely later. I'm not sure way must it be later or why the resistance about a little better and sooner. Cheerios, Emil. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
