From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] printk: implement printk_header() and merging
 printk, take #3
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:50:03 -0800
Message-ID: <20080214185003.9ca9a640.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <12028937731333-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com>
	<20080213155701.48871761.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<47B38E13.1060503@gmail.com>
	<20080213170950.86945835.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<47B398B3.40308@gmail.com>
	<47B4EFAB.2040102@gmail.com>
	<20080214182700.a9a706e9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<47B4FA9C.9080809@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:43548 "EHLO
	smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757180AbYBOCun (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:50:43 -0500
In-Reply-To: <47B4FA9C.9080809@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Cc: jeff@garzik.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, jengelh@computergmbh.de, matthew@wil.cx, randy.dunlap@oracle.com, daniel.ritz-ml@swissonline.ch, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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.