Re: sched: restore sanity

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:21:50 -0800
Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 19:17 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:22:23 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > What are the negatives of using pr_<level>?
> > pr_ is really just for "I am a driver and want a single line message
> > out in a standardized format".
> > Nothing wrong with that.
> > 
> > But here you are changing fundamental kernel outputs in the style
> > of an oops message. Multiline, complex and machine parsed things...
> 
> The prefixing was trivial to change.
> No other output was modified.

but you still have a "multiline message" (the atomic schedule oops like
dump) that now is half printk half pr_*... where pr_ is just a silly
wrapper around printk now that the prefixing etc is gone.

> 
> I believe kernel log output is specifically _not_ guaranteed
> and should not be so guaranteed to remain stable across
> versions.

changing it gratuitously is bad though. There *are* scripts out there
parsing oopses. Yes they change as kernels change, but changing
the output of oopses for silly reasons is just hostile 

> 
> 


-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/