Re: [PATCHSET] printk: implement printk_header() and merging printk, take #3

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:36:12 +0900 Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com> wrote:

> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>> printk is a special case, I think.  It's the primary logging/debugging
> >>> method which can't fail and as it's mostly interpreted by human beings
> >>> (and developers in problematic cases), it has different maneuvering room
> >>> on errors - ie. it's far better to print messages w/o header or proper
> >>> log level than failing to print, which is quite different requirements
> >>> from other components.
> >> Andrew, any more comments or suggestions on how to proceed on this?
> > 
> > Nope.
> > 
> >>  One
> >> way or the other, I think this is a problem worth solving.
> > 
> > There are a lot of such problems ;)
> 
> So, I guess it's NACK w/o suggested alternatives, right?
> 

I wouldn't nack without good reasons, and I have none here.  I don't have
very strong opinions either way.

As a seat-of-the-pants thing, it does seem to be a lot of core code to
solve a fairly minor problem in (afaik) one remote place.  But I haven't
looked - perhaps there are other places which could be improved if such
facilities were available.