On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:38:53 +0200, holzheu wrote:On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 11:41 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:<snip>Of course automatically generated message numbers would be great and
Your proposal is similar to one I made to some Japanese developersMaybe a stupid idea but why do we want to assign these numbers by hand?
earlier this year. I was more modest, proposing that we
- add an enhanced printk
xxprintk(msgid, KERN_ERR "some text %d\n", some_number);
I can imagine it could introduce collisions when merging tons of patches
with new messages... Wouldn't it be better to compute say, 8-byte hash
from the message and use it as it's identifier? We could do this
automagically at compile time.
hub.4a5bcd77: Detected some problem.
looks acceptable for me.
We could generate the hash using the format string of the printk. Since
we specify the format string also in KMSG_DOC, the hash for the
KMSG_DOC and the printk should match and we have the required link
between printk and description.
So technically that's probably doable.
* hashes are not unique
* We need an additional preprocessor step
* The might be people, who find 8 character hash values ugly in printks
The big advantage is, that we do not need to maintain message numbers.
I know it also has it's problems - youSince in our approach the message catalog is created automatically for
fix a spelling and the message gets a different id and you have to
update translation/documentation catalogue but maybe that could be
exactly one kernel and the message catalog belongs therefore to exactly
one kernel, I think the problem of changing error numbers is not too
We just had a meeting with the Japanese and several other participants
from the vendor and community side and came up with a potential proposal
that is similar to many things discussed here. It has the benefit that
it seems implementable and low/no overhead on most kernel developers.
The basic proposal is to use a tool, run by the kernel Makefile to
extract kernel messages from either the kernel source or the .i files
(both have advantages, although I prefer the source to the .i file
since it 1) gets all messages and 2) is probably a little quicker with
less impact to the standard kernel make.
These messages would be stored in a file in the source tree, e.g.
usr/src/linux/Translations/English. As each message is added to that
file, we calculate, say, an MD5 sum of the printk (dev_printk, sdev_printk,
etc.) string, and the text file ultimately contains:
MD5 Checksum of text; the printk text itself, the File name, the line number.
The checksum is run over just the printk. We definitely would not include
the line number since the line number is too volatile. Including the
file name in the hash *might* help disambiguate the hash a bit better in
the case of duplicates, but there was some debate that duplicates might
be better handled in other ways.
Andrew mentioned a mechanism for adding a subsystem tag or other tag
which helps disambiguate the message, either in the message file or in
the end user documentation (e.g. the Message Pedia/mPedia that the Japanese
have already created with ~350 messages, and a total of ~700 targetted
by the end of the year).
That tag could be appended to the beginning of the printk, to the end of
the printk, or even in a formatted comment at the end of the printk that
the tool could extract.
Then, the translations could be managed by anyone outside of the normal/
core kernel community, by simply creating a translation file, e.g.
usr/src/linux/Translations/Japanese, which contained the MD5 sum, the
translated message, the file name and line number (the last two redundent
perhaps but informational, and automatically generated if possible).
The files in the Translations directory could be uesd as the unique
keys for an external database (such as the Message Pedia, vendors or
distributions help pages, etc.) to help look up and explain root cause
of a problem. The key property here is that the MD5 sum becomes the
key to all database entries to look up that key.
Further, yet another kernel config option could allow distros to output
the calculated MD5 sum to be printed, much like we do with timestamps
End result is that these in-kernel message catalogs for translation are
updated automatically (mostly no kernel developer changes needed) and
the translations can be maintained by anyone who is interested.
On the topic of MD5 collisions, using a disambiguating tag would be a
simple addition for the few cases where that happens, the tool could
be educated to use that tag in the calculation of the MD5 sum, and we
have a 98% solution which impacts <1% of the kernel developers.
Folks present for this discussion included Ted T'so, James Bottomley,
several of the key Japenese folks interested in using this for debugging,
and reps from several vendors who would find this sort of info useful
for their folks supporting Linux in the field.