Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:19:23 -0400 | From | Theodore Tso <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL/RESEND] kernel message catalog patches |
| |
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 04:52:06PM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > In that case ALL printk messages would suddenly grow a hash. Which > precludes the use of the component name as part of the message since we > would need to add a component name for every single printk - that won't > happen.
Just as a suggestion, what about adding the component name the same way we added the priority level --- i.e., by adding an optional prefix, say "{COMPONENT}" to the printk string, which would be before the urgency level marker. If it's not present, printk can generate a 64-bit hash; if it is present, printk can generate the component name followed by a 32-bit hash.
That way we can gradually add component names in a completely backwards compatible way, and only to the device drivers that care or want it.
> > And as for the actual explanations: either they need to be totally outside > > the kernel (in a project of their own), or they'd need to be "kernel-doc" > > style things that are _in_ the source code. Not in Documentation/. Not > > separate from the printk() that they are associated with. > > The kmsg comments are already formatted in the kernel-doc style and you > can put the comment anywhere in the source file that contains the > printk. The Documentation/ is an extra path where the script looks for > the comments. I can easily drop that part. So yes, the concept is that > you can keep the message comment close to the printk.
I would think keeping the kmsg comments as kernel-doc style in the kernel source file makes a huge amount of sense.
Regards,
- Ted
| |