> Pardon me for asking, but shouldnït it just be printk that lives in the
> different segment - along with all its strings, of course.
>
> I was imagining a kernel module called "printk.o". The kernel hardly
> ever needs to use it so it can be as expensive to use as you like.
> Just put printk in the exported symbols list, then do the following:
I was just wondering that if printk was "transformed" like that, how could
the drivers developers include random temporary printks just to aid
debugging?
That would be a pain in the ass, 'cause you would need to #define your new
strings, add your printks, recompile, change the #defines and include some
more printks, remember what was that #define you just added (when dealing
with large amounts of abreviations, our memory tends to get lossy/messy),
and such, when you could be just adding/changing printks directly in your
driver's code.
Well, maybe I'm just getting picky... Anyway, redefining ~12000 printks
just on the kernel proper (what about third party modules?) is not a very
good idea when most everybody knows english anyway :).
US$0,02
Fabio
( Fabio Olive Leite leitinho@akira.ucpel.tche.br )
( Computer Science Student http://akira.ucpel.tche.br/~leitinho )
( )
( Running Linux is like running an Amiga; )
( It gives you that "I don't buy Microsoft" feeling... )