Re: [RFC] New kernel-message logging API

Vegard Nossum
2007-09-23T09:20:54Z

On 9/23/07, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de> wrote:
>
> On Sep 23 2007 10:39, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> >On 9/23/07, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 21:27 +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> >> > #define kprint(fmt, ...)
> >>
> >> Good ideas. Perhaps a prefix of klog or kp_ instead?
> >> Given the number of 80 column zealots, character naming length matters.
> >
> >I don't know. Compare the following two lines:
> >
> >printk(KERN_INFO "Message.\n");
> >kprint_info("Message.");
> >
> >By dropping the lengthy macro (it's not like it's going to change
> >while we're running anyway, so why not make it a part of the function
> >name?) and the final newline, we actually end up with a net decrease
> >in line length.
> >
> >I thought it would be nice to have something that looks familiar,
> >since that would ease an eventual transition. klog is a valid
> >alternative, but isn't kp a bit cryptic?
>
> I'd rather fix up code to reduce its indent rather than
> trying microoptimizations at the function name level!

Well, that's a different discussion, really. Is fixing the body of
[v]printk() enough? I don't think it's possible if you want to do
everything that I described in my original post.

It's not even an optimization from my point of view; I think Joe
Perches was arguing that code should be kept short. I was arguing that
it's already shorter than with the current situation.

Vegard