On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 12:38 +0200, holzheu wrote: > On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 11:41 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > Your proposal is similar to one I made to some Japanese developers > > > earlier this year. I was more modest, proposing that we > > > > > > - add an enhanced printk > > > > > > xxprintk(msgid, KERN_ERR "some text %d\n", some_number); > > Maybe a stupid idea but why do we want to assign these numbers by hand? > > I can imagine it could introduce collisions when merging tons of patches > > with new messages... Wouldn't it be better to compute say, 8-byte hash > > from the message and use it as it's identifier? We could do this > > automagically at compile time. > > Of course automatically generated message numbers would be great and > something like: > > hub.4a5bcd77: Detected some problem.
Sorry, I first read: 8 characters not 8 bytes. Indeed, "hub.d41d8cd98f00b204: Detected some problem." ... does not look like very beautiful. But maybe also 4 bytes would be enough, since the hash only has to be unique within one component e.g. "hub". Michael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
