From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753058Ab2IZWdl (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:33:41 -0400 Received: from mail.eecsit.tu-berlin.de ([130.149.17.13]:59748 "EHLO mail.cs.tu-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752526Ab2IZWdk (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:33:40 -0400 Message-ID: <506382B0.8040908@cs.tu-berlin.de> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:33:20 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Jan_H=2E_Sch=F6nherr=22?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.3) Gecko/20120324 Thunderbird/10.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Kroah-Hartman CC: Kay Sievers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: drop ambiguous LOG_CONT flag References: <1348682325-8402-1-git-send-email-schnhrr@cs.tu-berlin.de> <20120926211526.GA30261@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20120926211526.GA30261@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 26.09.2012 23:15, schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 07:58:45PM +0200, Jan H. Schönherr wrote: >> Against v3.6-rc7, only lightly tested. > > Well, against linux-next and highly tested would be best. It's a bit > late to get this into linux-next for 3.7, how important is it really? There are no conflicting commits in linux-next, so it should apply there as well. "Tested" as in: it fixes my use case: multiple printk()s shortly after each other -- with KERN_prefix but without a newline at the end. Those were sometimes concatenated since that printk-rewrite. All other printk()s that I come across more often look as usual, before and after the patch. (Mostly singular printk()s, but I also checked the output from the oom-killer.) There is no need to include this hastily -- at least not from my point of view -- as it is already broken in 3.5 and nobody else seems to notice it (... and I have now a fix for my development printk()s). Should I resend the patch later? I was also hoping that Kay might share his opinion, as the LOG_CONT flag is rather young, and he might have some different plans for it. (And of course, some more testing wouldn't hurt.) Regards Jan