Bill Wendling wrote:
>
> Also sprach Matthew Wilcox:
> } Why do we have printk anyway? It serves the same purpose as printf and
> } is even tagged as `taking arguments like printf' for gcc's type-checking
> } benefit. It makes it harder to take large chunks of code and move it
> } to userspace for testing (ok, i can #define printk printf, but still).
> } Just Hysterical Raisins?
> Are you suggesting using printf instead? Surely you jest. libc is not
> compiled into the kernel, of course.
libc has absolutely nothing to do with a kernel patch which does
"s/printk/printf/"
However, I don't think the change is worth the hassle... Having code
which is common code between userspace and kernelspace is nice when
possible, but I don't believe in bending over backwards to support such
scenarios...
Jeff
-- Jeff Garzik | Andre the Giant has a posse. Building 1024 | MandrakeSoft, Inc. |- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:29 EST