Re: [PATCH 0/8] replacing/fixing printk with pr_debug/pr_info in arch/i386 - intro

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Daniele Pizzoni <auouo@tin.it> wrote:

> On dom, 2004-10-17 at 18:19, Ingo Molnar wrote: 
> > [...]
> > 
> > 1) be careful, there is no inconsistency here. It's a printk that doesnt
> > end in a "\n" in the first line.
> 
> You're right, my fault and a big one!
> 
> Anyway I'm going to ask some questions.

> There's nothing wrong with Dprintk or dprintk. I simply found a
> request to do so on the janitors TODO list. I found out that in
> kernel.h there was really a pr_debug macro and I used it.

ok. 

> The rationale is that in the kernel there are lots of custom dprintk,
> Dprintk, DPRINTK, etc that we need a bit of housekeeping, I think.
> Anyway I didn't like pr_info either (why not a pr_notice...?) but I
> used it: it was in kernel.h I assumed it was for good.

ok - pr_debug() is ok i think for the APIC code. It pairs well with the
other variants: pr_notice(), etc.

> I need a bit of advice now: should I forget about printks' levels,
> consistency and focus on other issues or with a bit of work these
> patches may became worth of?

i'd suggest to first do the Dprintk -> pr_debug replacement patch with
as few output changes as possible. (output changes are unavoidable when
converting a \n-less printout.) Then do any format cleanups in a
separate patch.

(some of your other comments about 'spurious' whitespaces need a
double-check too, sometimes they are done for formatting reasons. So
always take a look at the log output before changing it.)

	Ingo