Re: [PATCH] printk(): add KERN_CONT where needed

[Kay Sievers]

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 05:47, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 05:00 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 04:36, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > A couple of other trivial comments:
>> > It's better to try to coalesce multiple printks(KERN_CONT
>> > (perhaps it's better to use pr_cont instead too)
>> > Branches with the same printks should be hoisted where
>> > possible.
>> Sure, please send patches for anything that is more appropriate to use here.
>> I did not want to change any logic which needs to be tested. I just
>> trivially added the obviously missing prefix, which solved the
>> problem, and which could be applied right away.
>
> I think you should do it "right" rather than add
> trivial markers.

The trivial markers _are_ correct. And they really fix things as soon
as we start storing machine-readable records with printk(), instead of
blindly glueing bytes together with each printk() call, for humans to
puzzle with them if things go wrong.

The stuff you propose is a pretty different story. I see your point,
but it's more 'cosmetics' in code than not simple correctness fixes.

Kay
--
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/