From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265800AbUJRKfh (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Oct 2004 06:35:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266155AbUJRKfg (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Oct 2004 06:35:36 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:56735 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265800AbUJRKfM (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Oct 2004 06:35:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:36:33 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Daniele Pizzoni Cc: kernel-janitors , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] replacing/fixing printk with pr_debug/pr_info in arch/i386 - intro Message-ID: <20041018103633.GA6792@elte.hu> References: <1098031764.3023.45.camel@pdp11.tsho.org> <20041017161953.GA24810@elte.hu> <1098067288.2892.293.camel@pdp11.tsho.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1098067288.2892.293.camel@pdp11.tsho.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Daniele Pizzoni 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