Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/3] printk: convert byte-buffer to variable-length record buffer

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 14:58 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think it's a distinction without a difference for,
> > as fas as I know, that's a case that doesn't exist
> > in the current kernel.
> 
> So? Even if we hadn't had this bug before (we have),

True.  I've fixed the ones you've introduced when you
changed printk semantics in the past.

> your argument is utter crap.

What happened to the pragmatic Linus Torvalds?
Did the dogmatic one replace him again temporarily?

> Even if we weren't to have that patter right *now*, that
> doesn't mean that it cannot happen.

Not what I said.

> Your grep is also not at all exhaustive.

I believe I know the printk subsystem and its uses
as well as anyone.  I don't think there is a case
today.

> We do need an escape model.

Or an agreement to not to emit "<[0-7cd]>"
as the first 3 bytes after a newline or as
the start of a new printk.  It could just
as easily be an escape is a required leading
non "<" character.

I think that's not onerous.

> The current KERN_CONT does that. Stop
> arguing for crap.

Correctness in all cases can be a good thing.
Simplicity may be better because complexity
is reduced.

cheers, Joe