From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
To: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Cc: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>,
Michael Holzheu <holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
Dick Streefland <dick.streefland@altium.nl>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jesse.barnes@intel.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de>,
Emil Medve <Emilian.Medve@freescale.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux@horizon.com" <linux@horizon.com>,
Miguel Ojeda <maxextreme@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:59:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200710042059.25721.rob@landley.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071004131703.25046db9.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
On Thursday 04 October 2007 3:17:03 pm Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:04:07 +0200 Vegard Nossum wrote:
> > Description: This patch largely implements the kprint API as previously
> > posted to the LKML and described in Documentation/kprint.txt (see patch).
> >
> > The main purpose of this change is provide a unified logging API to the
> > kernel and at the same time make it easy to add extensions, now and
> > later.
> >
> > My changes and additions are as follows:
>
> $ diffstat -p1 -w70 kprint.patch
...
> 40 files changed, 1660 insertions(+), 72 deletions(-)
I started this thread by posting an idea I had for shrinking the kernel by
allowing more code to be configured out. The API change was exactly one new
parameter, with a direct 1->1 mapping from the old API to the new one, which
was trivial to convert and which the compiler would catch if you missed one.
The result of the discussion is a patch adding 1600 lines to the kernel,
without removing anything.
Last I checked, the current prink() worked just fine. Why is this _not_ the
dreaded "infrastructure in search of a use"? What exactly can we _not_ do
with the current code? What does this allow us to remove and simplify?
I'm confused about what people are trying to accomplish here...
Rob
--
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-05 1:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-04 20:04 [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint) Vegard Nossum
2007-10-04 20:17 ` Randy Dunlap
2007-10-05 1:59 ` Rob Landley [this message]
2007-10-05 7:01 ` Miguel Ojeda
2007-10-05 16:26 ` Rob Landley
2007-10-05 23:01 ` Miguel Ojeda
2007-10-06 0:34 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-10-07 10:20 ` Miguel Ojeda
2007-10-07 21:56 ` Rob Landley
2007-10-07 22:32 ` Randy Dunlap
2007-10-06 6:10 ` Vegard Nossum
2007-10-07 21:50 ` Rob Landley
2007-10-08 15:25 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-10-08 15:33 ` Vegard Nossum
2007-10-08 15:42 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-10-05 13:13 ` Vegard Nossum
2007-10-05 16:05 ` Rob Landley
2007-10-05 17:01 ` Alan Cox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200710042059.25721.rob@landley.net \
--to=rob@landley.net \
--cc=Emilian.Medve@freescale.com \
--cc=Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=dick.streefland@altium.nl \
--cc=holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=jengelh@computergmbh.de \
--cc=jesse.barnes@intel.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@horizon.com \
--cc=maxextreme@gmail.com \
--cc=mrmacman_g4@mac.com \
--cc=randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
--cc=shemminger@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vegard.nossum@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox