From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/23] fujitsu-laptop: Convert printks to pr_ Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:50:13 -0700 Message-ID: <1301439013.4113.12.camel@Joe-Laptop> References: <201103292242.p2TMgAET020124@turbo.physics.adelaide.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.perches.com ([173.55.12.10]:4408 "EHLO mail.perches.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752169Ab1C2WuQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:50:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <201103292242.p2TMgAET020124@turbo.physics.adelaide.edu.au> Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jonathan Woithe Cc: Matthew Garrett , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 08:12 +0930, Jonathan Woithe wrote: > what does pr_*() give us over printk()? Consistency in use of prefix. > I presume it makes it easier to selectively remove certain > printk levels from the kernel image in the > name of size reduction. That's the goal, but there's no support in the standard kernel for that yet. It should also in the future make the prefix a singleton and remove it from the format string making the image text a bit smaller. > Some people *may* insist that these long (>80 character) pr_err() lines be > split so they remain <80 in length. This was the reason why the original > printk() call was split like it was. I don't. It makes grepping source for strings easier. cheers, Joe