On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 16:47 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 16:44 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 16:20 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > This provides nicer message output. Since it seems more appropriate
> > > for the nature of this module, also use KERN_INFO instead of other
> > > levels.
> > []
> > > diff --git a/lib/rbtree_test.c b/lib/rbtree_test.c
> > []
> > > @@ -153,7 +156,7 @@ static int rbtree_test_init(void)
> > > int i, j;
> > > cycles_t time1, time2, time;
> > >
> > > - printk(KERN_ALERT "rbtree testing");
> > > + pr_info("rbtree testing");
> > >
> > > prandom_seed_state(&rnd, 3141592653589793238ULL);
> > > init();
> > > @@ -171,7 +174,7 @@ static int rbtree_test_init(void)
> > > time = time2 - time1;
> > >
> > > time = div_u64(time, PERF_LOOPS);
> > > - printk(" -> %llu cycles\n", (unsigned long long)time);
> > > + pr_info(" -> %llu cycles\n", (unsigned long long)time);
> >
> > You change the output here by more than just adding a prefix.
> >
> > The first printk didn't have a newline.
> >
> > The old code would print:
> >
> > "rbtree testing -> <foo> cycles"
> >
> > The new code prints:
> >
> > "rbtree_test: rbtree testing"
> > "rbtree_test: -> <foo> cycles"
> >
>
> Ah, I see. This is actually the first time I'm using pr_* calls. I
> actually don't mind the new format, it looked
> ok, but if others don't agree, I can always resend it.
Your choice. I don't prefer one over the other.
I do prefer you add an explicit newline to the first
format though instead of relying on the implicit
newline the printk subsystem will emit during the next
pr_<level> call.
cheers, Joe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
