Re: sched: restore sanity

[Ingo Molnar]

* Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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

These are pretty marginal advantages - borderline not worth the resulting 
churn. But borderline good patch is still a good patch in my book so i applied 
it. Btw., i wish you mixed with real kernel code too instead of going down the 
Bunk path. That would reduce such friction substantially IMO - people would 
see that you are willing to do (and capable of doing) the harder stuff too.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/