Josef Sipek <[email protected]> wrote:
> First of all, the above code is to just illustrate a point. And as a matter of
> fact it may not even work if some other kernel thread prints something while
> do_foo() is executing, the whole thing will get screwed up.
Thats another reason to not do it. And this means for me, we do not need to
support or optimize for this kind of printk abuse.
> If I remember correctly, I the second line of the "sample" code, will _NOT_
> produce a timestamp. So, the output will be:
>
> [1234567.123456] fooo.....<7>done.
> where, the timestamp is that of the first printk.
Yes, thats the other problem, you miss the timestamp for the end of a long
running operation. Thats why it is better to have that in two lines (maybe
the second line with smaller severity)
Gruss
Bernd
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
