Re: [PATCHv v3] power: Include additional information inpm_print_times

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2013-06-23 at 12:35 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, June 23, 2013 03:16:30 AM Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-06-23 at 12:22 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 23, 2013 03:03:31 AM Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2013-06-23 at 12:07 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, June 22, 2013 06:05:50 PM Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > > If any script needs something stable it should
> > > > > > depend on information available through other
> > > > > > sources like trace or proc or sysfs.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That is clearly impossible in this particular case, though.
> > > > 
> > > > Why couldn't this printk be converted into an equivalent tracepoint?
> > > 
> > > Well, why wouldn't you try to do that?
> > 
> > Why should I?
>
> Because you're arguing that it should be done.
>
> If you think that it's better to use tracepoints here, please implement those
> tracepoints and show everyone that they are really better than what we have.

Nope, you're arguing that dmesg output, known to be non-stable,
should not have this particular message changed.

You stated "<it's> clearly impossible".  I do dispute that.

If you need something stable, you shouldn't use dmesg,
That's a simple statement, not anything else.

Right now, I don't care if this particular message changes.
I'm not doing any PM testing or timing at the moment.

> Till then, we'll use what's already there.

Fine by me.  It's up to Shuah Khan to get a patch accepted.

cheers, Joe

--
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/