Re: sched: restore sanity

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 16:19 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 07:05 -0800, San Mehat wrote:
> > >> Probably, but the rest is just as annoying, pr_* is crap.
> > Oh? Out of curiosity whats wrong with it?
> That's what should be asked of printk().

pr_<level> offers some things printk cannot:

o standardization, eliminates frequent missing KERN_ levels
  and missing/typo/misspelled module prefixes  
o visually shorter, fewer chars used, less 80 char wrapping
o finer grained ability to eliminate unnecessary messages
  for embedded systems
o standardized mechanism to prefix messages with module/function
o eventual code reduction via use of a singleton instead of
  duplicated module/function names
o eventual dynamic_debug styled control of prefix by
  module/function

There are quite of number of arbitrarily named module wrapper
macros and functions that build on printk.

Standardizing them around a fewer number of prefixes would
ease grepping for logging.

A standardized logging function to filter messages by
bitmask or level could also be useful. 

> We try to stick to ANSI-C as much as possible, we've got
> kalloc,kfree,strcmp,strnlen and all the other 'regular' C bits,
> deviating from that serves no purpose but seed confusion.

There is a lot of kernel code that isn't 'regular' C.

Nothing in pr_<level> is not ANSI-C, it just builds on printk.

> But I feel this has no place in the core kernel at all, esp when its
> getting in the way of things without offering a single benefit.

What are the negatives of using pr_<level>?


--
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/