On 31/08/18 09:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 31.08.18 at 08:43, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 31/08/18 08:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 30.08.18 at 19:08, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> On 30/08/18 15:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 30.08.18 at 14:31, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The observant amongst you might realise that this reverts parts of c/s
>>>>>> 51ad90aea21c - What can I say? Several years of hindsight is very
>>>>>> useful, and
>>>>>> at the time I did ask the maintainers which option they thought would be
>>>>>> better...
>>>>> ... I think both the earlier and this change are heading in the
>>>>> wrong direction: I would much rather see the newline omitted
>>>>> everywhere, _including_ in panic() itself: This causes one line
>>>>> less to scroll off the screen in case you don't have a serial
>>>>> console.
>>
>> Can't we just drop printing the extra \n in panic()?
>>
>> - printk("%s\n", buf);
>> + printk("%s", buf);
>
> That's what I'm suggesting, yes, plus (if there are any) dropping
> trailing newlines in panic() invocations.
Uuh, both?
This would look like:
***********************************
PANIC on cpu 2:
blalblabla**********************************
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
