From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751362AbaLEKcw (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2014 05:32:52 -0500 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:49358 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751308AbaLEKcu (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2014 05:32:50 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:32:48 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Joe Perches Cc: Julia Lawall , cocci , LKML Subject: printf vs. printk (was Re: Side-effect free printk?) Message-ID: <20141205103248.GA6945@amd> References: <1417629003.2902.14.camel@perches.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1417629003.2902.14.camel@perches.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! BTW... All the time I'm programming in kernel, I use printf(), and when hacking userspace, I use printk(). Nasty. Given that printf() and printk() have exactly the same behaviour, could we allow printf() in kernel? Now... printk()s are usually removed before merging the driver, so code will not see much change, but it will certainly result in less 4-letter words while developing. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html