On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 09:50 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2020/05/07 0:26, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-05-06 at 18:45 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > On 2020/04/28 20:33, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > > On 2020/04/27 15:21, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > > > > KERN_NO_CONSOLES is for type of messages where "saved for later > > > > > > analysis" is > > > > > > important but "printed for immediate notification" is not important. > > > > > > In other words, KERN_NO_CONSOLES is NOT for dying messages where > > > > > > "printed for > > > > > > immediate notification" is important. > > > > > > > > > > per-console loglevel is a user configurable parameter. > > > > > KERN_NO_CONSOLES is a hard-coded policy. > > > > > > > > But given that whether to use KERN_NO_CONSOLES is configurable via e.g. > > > > sysctl, > > > > KERN_NO_CONSOLES will become a user configurable parameter. What's > > > > still wrong? > > > > > > > > > > Any problems remaining? > > > > printk_get_level / printk_skip_level and the various > > uses of %pV using printk_get_level > > > > Excuse me, but what do you mean? > > I wish printk() accepts "loglevel" argument detached from "fmt" argument (e.g.
I think that's a bad idea as it would expand _every_ use of printk with another argument and overall code size would increase for very little value. And do look at the code and uses of printk_get_level.
