Re: sched: restore sanity

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 07:05 -0800, San Mehat wrote:
> >> Probably, but the rest is just as annoying, pr_* is crap.

> Oh? Out of curiosity whats wrong with it?

That's what should be asked of printk().

And as long as we're not going to depricate printk() -- any attempt
thereof will meet with fierce resistance from yours truly -- its all a
futile exercise at best, and breaking scripts habits and patches at
worst.

I might be strange, but if I want to print something in C I write
print[fk]() and be done with it, there's no reason what so ever to
introduce fancy wankery for this.

We try to stick to ANSI-C as much as possible, we've got
kalloc,kfree,strcmp,strnlen and all the other 'regular' C bits,
deviating from that serves no purpose but seed confusion.

If driver folks feel the need for dumb-ass wrappers because they can't
write printk() then maybe, otoh if they can't do that, then wtf are they
doing writing drivers anyway.

But I feel this has no place in the core kernel at all, esp when its
getting in the way of things without offering a single benefit.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/