From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765775AbYBODRO (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:17:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753905AbYBODQ6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:16:58 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.188]:39958 "EHLO rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751078AbYBODQ4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:16:56 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Cm7MvIzi8vpZMBRDWC14AIOtTi2KDzejDSfQSJVqgcNTo/FfeWHP1lCjf7ctEQojCXpzXDH3qVgN2rHacFxF7kZUMKVFeNbhmvwi90tJvQ6YNIh3Ja9+ccDUPJW7V8POE/4EPHnN43TgIWpjxHZnBlo7Xk+YeMg9u9wmag2WZPo= Message-ID: <47B50420.3060403@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:16:48 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20070801) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: jeff@garzik.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, jengelh@computergmbh.de, matthew@wil.cx, randy.dunlap@oracle.com, daniel.ritz-ml@swissonline.ch, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] printk: implement printk_header() and merging printk, take #3 References: <12028937731333-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> <20080213155701.48871761.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <47B38E13.1060503@gmail.com> <20080213170950.86945835.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <47B398B3.40308@gmail.com> <47B4EFAB.2040102@gmail.com> <20080214182700.a9a706e9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <47B4FA9C.9080809@gmail.com> <20080214185003.9ca9a640.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080214185003.9ca9a640.akpm@linux-foundation.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: >> So, I guess it's NACK w/o suggested alternatives, right? > > I wouldn't nack without good reasons, and I have none here. I don't have > very strong opinions either way. I was just wondering whether I should just go with snprintf dancing in eh_link_report, which does make sense if not many need merging printk. > As a seat-of-the-pants thing, it does seem to be a lot of core code to > solve a fairly minor problem in (afaik) one remote place. But I haven't > looked - perhaps there are other places which could be improved if such > facilities were available. Okay, I see. I'll look around and see whether there are other places which can use it. I can think of a few in SCSI. Let's see. Thanks. -- tejun