Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/3] printk: convert byte-buffer tovariable-length record buffer

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 22:39 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 16:14 -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> >> Is there any difference in any of the cases in terms of how printk's
> >> that are prefixed with KERN_CONT versus a printk that does not have
> >> any KERN_* prefix?  If so, is there value in keeping KERN_CONT?
> >
> > As far as I know, no.
> >
> > It is a useful marker to show where prints
> > are actually continued.
> >
> > #define KERN_CONT ""
> >
> > would save a small amount of text.
> 
> Nah, we can't do that. We need it to tell "here is your non-prefix to
> parse, leave the data behind alone".

That's where I think you're still a bit
uncertain how the _current_ printk system
works.  Your _new_ printk system should
have identical behavior.  Though if you
manage to use the call tree and current to
coalesce complete messages more correctly,
that'd be great.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/