Re: sched: restore sanity

[Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>]

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().
> 
> And as long as we're not going to depricate printk() -- any attempt
> thereof will meet with fierce resistance from yours truly -- its all a
> futile exercise at best, and breaking scripts habits and patches at
> worst.
> 
> I might be strange, but if I want to print something in C I write
> print[fk]() and be done with it, there's no reason what so ever to
> introduce fancy wankery for this.
> 
> 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.
> 
> If driver folks feel the need for dumb-ass wrappers because they can't
> write printk() then maybe, otoh if they can't do that, then wtf are they
> doing writing drivers anyway.
> 
> 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.

FWIW, I agree.

You can have my printk when you pry it from my cold dead fingers ;-)

	-Mike