On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:43:33 EDT, "J. Bruce Fields" said: > Looks like a reasonable idea to me, thanks! Any objection to just > calling it "svc_printk" instead of "svc_printkerr"? > > I also wonder whether these shouldn't all be dprintk's instead of > printk's. One misbehaving client could create a lot of noise in the > logs.
I shouldn't have to rebuild my kernel with debugging enabled just to see who is throwing trash at my machine. printk(KERN_INFO maybe and/or using a printk_ratelimit.
pgp3VfPzstmqp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
