Am Montag, 29. Januar 2001 18:40 schrieb James Simmons:
> > You are right... this patch make no sense on a computer system with human
> > interactions. But think on tiny hidden computers, like in a dishwasher or
> > a traffic light. This computer are standalone, if it crash, then it will
> > be re
> You are right... this patch make no sense on a computer system with human
> interactions. But think on tiny hidden computers, like in a dishwasher or a
> traffic light. This computer are standalone, if it crash, then it will be
> rebooted.
> Nobody will attach a terminal to this kind of comp
Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Stefani Seibold wrote:
> >
> > Second, i had change the macro so it calls now a inline funciton
> > printk_inline which always return 0. So it should be now compatibel to the
> > standard printk funciton.
>
> A #define is better.
>
> You see, even if printk is a null in
Stefani Seibold wrote:
> The inline function is the best choice, because it it full compatible to old
> old printk. No side effects are expeted.
What is the difference?
I can't think of any difference between:
#define printk(format, args...) ((int) 0)
and:
static inline int printk_inline
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> this is now the third try to release my patch for disabling all kernel
> messages. It is usefull on deep embedded systems with no human interactions
> --- linux/arch/s390/config.in Thu Nov 16 21:51:28 2000
> +++ linux.noprintk/arch/s390/config.in
Stefani Seibold wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> this is now the third try to release my patch for disabling all kernel
> messages. It is usefull on deep embedded systems with no human interactions
> and for rescue discs where the diskspace is always to less.
>
> This patch has now the following feature
Hi Andrew,
thanks for your feddback, but... you are not right. Because i override the
printk with a macro thats call a inline function printk_inline with no
paramters and only return 0. So the compiler sill removes the paramters.
If you try this patch, you will see, that none of the parameters
Stefani Seibold wrote:
>
> Second, i had change the macro so it calls now a inline funciton
> printk_inline which always return 0. So it should be now compatibel to the
> standard printk funciton.
A #define is better.
You see, even if printk is a null inline function,
printk("foo");
w
Hi guys,
thanks for the feedback. This is now the second try of my disable printk
patch.
First i moved the option for disabling the prinbtk messages form the menu
character devices to kernel hacking.
Second, i had change the macro so it calls now a inline funciton
printk_inline which always
You are right... this patch make no sense on a computer system with human
interactions. But think on tiny hidden computers, like in a dishwasher or a
traffic light. This computer are standalone, if it crash, then it will be
rebooted.
Nobody will attach a terminal to this kind of computer, nobod
Stefani Seibold wrote:
>
> Hi Linus,
> Hi Alan,
> Hi everybody,
>
> this kernel patch allows to disable all printk messages, by overloading the
> printk function with a dummy printk macro.
>
> This patch is usefull for embedded systems, where the hardware never changes
> and normaly no textcons
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 09:46:02PM +0100, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> Hi Linus,
> Hi Alan,
> Hi everybody,
>
> this kernel patch allows to disable all printk messages, by
> overloading the printk function with a dummy printk macro.
>
> This patch is usefull for embedded systems, where the hardware
12 matches
Mail list logo
