Hello Joe,
> I expect all the kernel logging functions to be
> overhauled eventually.
>
> I'd prefer a mechanism that somehow supports
> identifying complete messages. I think the new
> pr_<level> functions are not particularly useful
> without a mechanism to avoid or identify multiple
> processors or threads interleaving partial in-progress
> multiple statement messages.
I agree with you that one can think and propose an improved kernel
logging system, but that might be an incremental effort. For now,
patches like the ones you or I sent are a step in the general direction
of improving kernel logging, fix an inconsistency and increase the
probability of people logging kernel message as intended (i.e. at a
minimum, with a loglevel). I don't think that this hurts or delays the
perceived urgency of getting a sub-optimal kernel logging mechanism...
> At some point, sooner or later, the logging functions
> will be improved. Apparently, more likely later.
I'm not sure way must it be later or why the resistance about a little
better and sooner.
Cheerios,
Emil.
-
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]
