From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752883AbbFFNg6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Jun 2015 09:36:58 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:51425 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751528AbbFFNgt (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Jun 2015 09:36:49 -0400 Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 15:36:46 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Joe Perches Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] power: user: Standardize "Syncing filesystems ..." message Message-ID: <20150606133646.GB29050@amd> References: <06fdc51c7d2ab639729107a137b947704fd7d161.1433442778.git.joe@perches.com> <20150605103727.GA6054@amd> <1433516858.2658.44.camel@perches.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1433516858.2658.44.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 On Fri 2015-06-05 08:07:38, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 12:37 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Thu 2015-06-04 11:36:48, Joe Perches wrote: > > > Instead of a two individual printks that would generally be > > > emitted on a single line, emit 2 lines to make the start > > > and end of the synchronization more easily timeable. > [] > > > diff --git a/kernel/power/user.c b/kernel/power/user.c > [] > > > @@ -221,9 +221,9 @@ static long snapshot_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, > > > if (data->frozen) > > > break; > > > > > > - printk("Syncing filesystems ... "); > > > + printk("Syncing filesystems ...\n"); > > > sys_sync(); > > > - printk("done.\n"); > > > + printk("Syncing filesystems: done\n"); > > > > You converted " ..." -> "..." elsewhere, so why not here? > > Missed that one. > > > Is splitting message to two lines a good idea? > > I think the "done" is unnecessary actually. Well... if it is not neccessary for timing, this change can be safely dropped, as timing will be provided for existing code, too. > As there's no newline on the first, printk is > async and can be interleaved by other threads. ...which will probably never happen here, due to feezer. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html