From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753564AbYDMHkl (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 03:40:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751673AbYDMHkc (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 03:40:32 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:49734 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751589AbYDMHkb (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 03:40:31 -0400 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:40:07 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Nick Andrew Cc: Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , joe@perches.com, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: Remember the message level for multi-line output Message-ID: <20080413074007.GE20332@elte.hu> References: <20080412161733.24882.30930.stgit@marcab.local.tull.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080412161733.24882.30930.stgit@marcab.local.tull.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Nick Andrew wrote: > Modify vprintk() to remember the message loglevel each time it is > specified and use it for subsequent lines of output which do not > specify one, within the same call to printk. > > Restructure the logic so the processing of the leading 3 characters of > each input line is in one place, regardless whether printk_time is > enabled. hm, i'm not sure about the change itself (printks are often random, so the output to the console would depend on printk ordering), but the combined effect seems to be a nice cleanup that reduces the linecount: > 1 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) so how about splitting it into two, first the code restructuring then a small add-on that does your feature? Does this make sense to you? This way, even if the feature ends up not being applied, we'll have your nice cleanup :-) Ingo