Re: [GIT PATCH] driver core patches for 3.5-rc1 - try 2

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 02:58:47PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> While there are several things I like about the
> printk modifications, (binary header, delta time,
> slightly better partial message deinterleaving,
> global msg_id, kmsg is ok too), I am concerned
> about the utility and expectations for the new
> [v]printk_emit functions.
> 
> I think it is not really ready to be merged
> at this time.
> 
> The commit sequencing was unclean.

Yes, but the build was never broken, the system always worked, and the
end result was agreed apon by everyone as a nice addition.

> The original commit originally required KERN_CONT
> and it was modified by another commit to return
> to the current behavior.
> 
> What really are the expectations and true use-cases
> for [v]printk_emit?

What's wrong with the existing use case?  Since when do we write
use-cases for kernel functions?

> How is it really better that what is available now?
> 
> Perhaps it would be better to respin all the
> printk modifications without adding [v]printk_emit
> and have the [v]printk_emit bits debated a bit more.

I'm always glad to review patches, but to just propose something that
works to be reverted without a patch to replace the functionality, isn't
ok.

thanks,

greg k-h