On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 08:19, Rainer Gerhards <rgerha...@hq.adiscon.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lenn...@poettering.net] >> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 10:38 PM >> To: Rainer Gerhards >> Cc: Michael Biebl; Andrey Borzenkov; systemd- >> de...@lists.freedesktop.org >> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-logger and external syslog daemon >> >> On Thu, 17.03.11 08:38, Rainer Gerhards (rgerha...@hq.adiscon.com) >> wrote: >> >> > > You mean a new udev/dracut/systemd on an old kernel? The messages >> they >> > > print would look a bit weird if they are used together with log msg >> > > timestamping the way the kernel does it, since the kernel doesn't >> > > recognize the prefix. (See Kay's post about this). But besides >> these >> > > cosmetic issues nothing should really go wrong. >> > > >> > > (I wonder if we can find a nice way to detect whether the kernel is >> new >> > > enough for this, so that we could strip the facility automatically >> for >> > > older ones. Explcitily checking for kernel versions at runtime is >> evil >> > > though... I can't think of a good way though...) >> > >> > Wouldn't it work to check if there is a "<PRI>" right at the start of >> the >> > message? I think that it is actual user data would be extremely >> improbable, >> > so this should be a good enough indication. That way, we could pull >> the PRI >> > even without the kernel patch (but, granted, it is kind of an >> interface >> > change...). >> >> Hmm? >> >> The question is how we can detect whether it is safe to write messages >> to kmsg with PRI values with more than 3 bits. 2.6.39 and above will be >> able >> to handle that properly, even if you enable per-line printk kernel >> timestamping. On 2.6.38 only 3-bit-PRI values will look good if you use >> printk kernel timestamping. > > Probably I misunderstood the answer to "what happens on a kernel without that > patch if a full PRI is written?". I understood the answer was "the PRI is > moved into the message". > > So "<123>msg" > would actually become > "<1> [TS] <123>Msg" > > From your answer I deduce this understanding is incorrect. So what will then > happen on kernels without that patch if printk is provided a message > "<123>MSg"?
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=9d90c8d9cde929cbc575098e825d7c29d9f45054 Kay _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel