Re: [folded] kernelh-add-printk_ratelimited-and-pr_level_rl-rename.patch removed from -mm tree

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 17:44 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:28:02 +0100, Peter Zijlstra said:
> > On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 17:08 -0800, akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
> > > s/_rl/_ratelimited/g
> > 
> > do we feel this pr_* wankery is worth the hassle? I'd as soon send a
> > patch removing all this crap.
> 
> pr_foo() instead of printk(KERN_FOO) is probably worth the hassle, as it
> allows more selective inclusion of messages if you're trying to build an
> embedded kernel.  It's easy to say "I want pr_warning() to stay in, but
> lower levels compile to nothing". Trying to keep a 'printk(KERN_WARNING'
> while making a printk(KERN_DEBUG go away is just asking for some truly
> astounding pre-processor gyrations.

So we are depricating printk()?

Last time I asked that the answer was no, at which point there is
absolutely no point in using pr_* wankery.

And I much prefer the printk() thing, because
 1) my fingers know it
 2) it looks like the userspace printf thing
 3) its an easier pattern to grep for