On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 14:19 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 07 May 2014 11:10:38 -0700 > Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 10:35 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Wed, 7 May 2014 10:21:28 -0400 Dan Streetman <ddstr...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > > It would be even better if the note could clarify that sometimes it is > > > > ok to use printk(KERN_DEBUG > > > > > > Exactly. I think it's rather stupid to have to do a #define DEBUG to > > > have pr_debug() print in general. > > > > > > I see no reason to have pr_debug() be anything different than the other > > > pr_*() functions. > > > > pr_debug is meant to be disabled and have _no_ runtime > > effect unless DEBUG is #defined. > > I understand why it does it, but having pr_debug() named just like > pr_info(), pr_notice(), pr_warning(), pr_err(), pr_crit(), pr_alert(), > pr_emerg(), where all those are just printk(<LOGLEVEL>...) *except* for > pr_debug(). That's inconsistent and wrong. > > pr_debug() should have been just printk(KERN_DEBUG ...) as that follows > convention.
The convention history is kind of inverted. As you probably know, all the other pr_<level> macros other than pr_info were added some years after pr_debug. > Yes, it's somewhat too late as pr_debug() is all over the place, but > maybe when things slow down (Ha! like that will ever happen ... "are we > done yet?"), then we could do a massive clean up and rename pr_debug() > to something not so confusing in its usage compared to the other pr_*() > prints. g'luck with that. Renaming pr_warning to pr_warn has taken 4 years and it's only a 2:1 ratio in favor of pr_warn and there are _more_ uses of pr_warning today than when pr_warn was introduced. (1006 to 773) 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/