Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/7] printk: Poke printk extra hard

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> >
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PRINTK_DEBUG
> > +void printk_init(void)
> > +{
> > +       struct rq *rq;
> > +       unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > +       local_irq_save(flags);
> > +       rq = this_rq();
> > +       raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> > +       printk(KERN_DEBUG "printk: echo echo echo..\n");
> > +       raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> > +       local_irq_restore(flags);
> 
> Ok, I can't really say that I think this is worth a config option like this.
> 
> Maybe an example module or something?
> 
> And I don't know *why*, but my immediate reaction to the 
> message was that it either should be serious and say what it 
> tested ("printk() works under rq lock"), or it should say 
> "Bork bork bork". "echo echo echo" sounds just stupid.

We could perhaps use the standard mike test message:

  printk: Tap, tap, is this thing on?

Thanks,

	Ingo