Messages in this thread | | | From | Kay Sievers <> | Date | Tue, 3 Apr 2012 12:30:35 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] printk(): add KERN_CONT where needed |
| |
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 05:47, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 05:00 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 04:36, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: >> > A couple of other trivial comments: >> > It's better to try to coalesce multiple printks(KERN_CONT >> > (perhaps it's better to use pr_cont instead too) >> > Branches with the same printks should be hoisted where >> > possible. >> Sure, please send patches for anything that is more appropriate to use here. >> I did not want to change any logic which needs to be tested. I just >> trivially added the obviously missing prefix, which solved the >> problem, and which could be applied right away. > > I think you should do it "right" rather than add > trivial markers.
The trivial markers _are_ correct. And they really fix things as soon as we start storing machine-readable records with printk(), instead of blindly glueing bytes together with each printk() call, for humans to puzzle with them if things go wrong.
The stuff you propose is a pretty different story. I see your point, but it's more 'cosmetics' in code than not simple correctness fixes.
Kay
| |