From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758331AbZLPKtN (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:49:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755233AbZLPKtJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:49:09 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:48057 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754370AbZLPKtI (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:49:08 -0500 Subject: Re: [folded] kernelh-add-printk_ratelimited-and-pr_level_rl-rename.patch removed from -mm tree From: Peter Zijlstra To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, h-shimamoto@ct.jp.nec.com, joe@perches.com, mingo@elte.hu, nooiwa@miraclelinux.com, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, LKML In-Reply-To: <25197.1260917095@localhost> References: <200912150108.nBF18TNx015047@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <1260872882.4165.353.camel@twins> <25197.1260917095@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:48:24 +0100 Message-ID: <1260960504.17860.76.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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