I agree to kettenis's opinion. Almost all users will not care the VID/PID information even though it is contained in dmesg. You (and potential bug report user) can get this information (with more detail) by usbdevs. isn't it enough?
-- Yojiro UO On 2010/04/20, at 23:14, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2010/04/20 15:46, Mark Kettenis wrote: >>> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:23:46 +0100 >>> From: Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> >>> >>> after reading the N hundredth misc@ post with some USB device >>> where device/vendor IDs haven't been shown, it seems that printing >>> them in the device attach line might save some trouble. >>> >>> any comments/suggestions? >> >> I think this makes dmesg uglier. The information is easily available >> from usbdevs(8). >> >> Perhaps the uglification is acceptable for devices that attach as >> ugen(4) though. > > I agree that it makes dmesg uglier, and the information is easily > available. But on the other hand, problem reports are consistently > sent without this information (but they do often have dmesg in the > first mail), and it would add information to dmesglog. > > I think there would be relatively small benefit from just doing > this for ugen(4); most of the problem reports that this would > improve involve devices attaching as umsm(4) or uhid(4).
