Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 09 Apr 2002 07:50:17 -0700 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: Event logging vs enhancing printk |
| |
> If you want buffering you can add it on a case-by-case basis, but in > general I don't believe you do want a delay, because the output might be > lost on a dying system. Prink works like output to stderr, character > buffered. I would think a change to anything this fundimental would be a > Linus decision, but I think it's correct as is.
OK, now try to read the panic output when two cpus panic at once ;-) Been there, sworn vehemently at that ...
There's no point in logging messages if you can't read them afterwards. I think 99.99% of such cases would not involve printk printing half a buffered line, then dying, though I admit it's technically possible.
Of course, we could just do this buffering for the event logging half of the subsystem if people really object. Personally, I think it's a win to fix printk whilst we're at it, but a half-fix is always an option.
M.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |