On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 12:38 +0200, holzheu wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 11:41 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Your proposal is similar to one I made to some Japanese developers
> > > earlier this year. I was more modest, proposing that we
> > >
> > > - add an enhanced printk
> > >
> > > xxprintk(msgid, KERN_ERR "some text %d\n", some_number);
> > Maybe a stupid idea but why do we want to assign these numbers by hand?
> > 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.
>
> Of course automatically generated message numbers would be great and
> something like:
>
> hub.4a5bcd77: Detected some problem.
Sorry, I first read: 8 characters not 8 bytes.
Indeed, "hub.d41d8cd98f00b204: Detected some problem." ... does not look
like very beautiful.
But maybe also 4 bytes would be enough, since the hash only has to be
unique within one component e.g. "hub".
Michael
-
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]
