On 10/5/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 04 October 2007 3:17:03 pm Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:04:07 +0200 Vegard Nossum wrote: > > > Description: This patch largely implements the kprint API as previously > > > posted to the LKML and described in Documentation/kprint.txt (see patch). > > > > > > The main purpose of this change is provide a unified logging API to the > > > kernel and at the same time make it easy to add extensions, now and > > > later. > > > > > > My changes and additions are as follows: > > > > $ diffstat -p1 -w70 kprint.patch > ... > > 40 files changed, 1660 insertions(+), 72 deletions(-) > > I started this thread by posting an idea I had for shrinking the kernel by > allowing more code to be configured out. The API change was exactly one new > parameter, with a direct 1->1 mapping from the old API to the new one, which > was trivial to convert and which the compiler would catch if you missed one. > > The result of the discussion is a patch adding 1600 lines to the kernel, > without removing anything. > > Last I checked, the current prink() worked just fine. Why is this _not_ the > dreaded "infrastructure in search of a use"? What exactly can we _not_ do > with the current code? What does this allow us to remove and simplify? > > I'm confused about what people are trying to accomplish here... >
I think we all are trying to give ideas to improve the current logging API. If something works, it's great; but it doesn't mean that it can't be improved, right? -- Miguel Ojeda http://maxextreme.googlepages.com/index.htm - 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/