Re: [folded]kernelh-add-printk_ratelimited-and-pr_level_rl-rename.patch removed from-mm tree

From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Wed Dec 16 2009 - 05:49:17 EST

On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 17:44 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:28:02 +0100, Peter Zijlstra said:
> > On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 17:08 -0800, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > s/_rl/_ratelimited/g
> >
> > do we feel this pr_* wankery is worth the hassle? I'd as soon send a
> > patch removing all this crap.
> pr_foo() instead of printk(KERN_FOO) is probably worth the hassle, as it
> allows more selective inclusion of messages if you're trying to build an
> embedded kernel. It's easy to say "I want pr_warning() to stay in, but
> lower levels compile to nothing". Trying to keep a 'printk(KERN_WARNING'
> while making a printk(KERN_DEBUG go away is just asking for some truly
> astounding pre-processor gyrations.

So we are depricating printk()?

Last time I asked that the answer was no, at which point there is
absolutely no point in using pr_* wankery.

And I much prefer the printk() thing, because
1) my fingers know it
2) it looks like the userspace printf thing
3) its an easier pattern to grep for

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at