On Sat, Dec 27, 2025 at 10:57:01AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 16:45:47 +0200 > Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm fine for trying other ways to speed up the compilation, but removing > > > full access to trace_printk() isn't one of them.
OK, then let's keep trace_printk() available for kernel.h users. Andrew, can you take the first 6 patches of the series, if no other objections? > > I interpreted this as if the header inclusion should be moved from kernel.h > > to printk.h as a compromise that satisfies all (?) stakeholders. Is it > > possible > > approach? > > I'm fine with putting the include of trace_printk.h into printk.h. If > you remove printk.h from kernel.h I would expect a lot more people to > complain about it. Including Linus himself. The difference is that printk() is not a debugging tool. It is used widely to report errors and info messages. Normally, I want to cleanup all debugging code from my module after finishing development. If trace_printk.h will be a part of printk.h, there's always a chance to miss trace_printk() somewhere. I'd prefer to keep them separate. Thanks, Yury
