Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint)

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...>
Cc: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...>, LKML <linux-kernel@...>, Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@...>, Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...>, Joe Perches <joe@...>, Dick Streefland <dick.streefland@...>, Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...>, Jesse Barnes <jesse.barnes@...>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...>, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>, Emil Medve <Emilian.Medve@...>, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...>, linux@horizon.com <linux@...>, Miguel Ojeda <maxextreme@...>
Date: Thursday, October 4, 2007 - 9:59 pm

On Thursday 04 October 2007 3:17:03 pm Randy Dunlap wrote:
...

I started this thread by posting an idea I had for shrinking the kernel by 
allowing more code to be configured out.  The API change was exactly one new 
parameter, with a direct 1->1 mapping from the old API to the new one, which 
was trivial to convert and which the compiler would catch if you missed one.

The result of the discussion is a patch adding 1600 lines to the kernel, 
without removing anything.

Last I checked, the current prink() worked just fine.  Why is this _not_ the 
dreaded "infrastructure in search of a use"?  What exactly can we _not_ do 
with the current code?  What does this allow us to remove and simplify?

I'm confused about what people are trying to accomplish here...

Rob
-- 
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
  - Ken Thompson.
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint), Vegard Nossum, (Thu Oct 4, 4:04 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint), Randy Dunlap, (Thu Oct 4, 4:17 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint), Rob Landley, (Thu Oct 4, 9:59 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint), Vegard Nossum, (Fri Oct 5, 9:13 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint), Rob Landley, (Fri Oct 5, 12:05 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint), Miguel Ojeda, (Fri Oct 5, 3:01 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint), Rob Landley, (Fri Oct 5, 12:26 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint), Vegard Nossum, (Sat Oct 6, 2:10 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint), Rob Landley, (Sun Oct 7, 5:50 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint), Stephen Hemminger, (Mon Oct 8, 11:25 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint), Vegard Nossum, (Mon Oct 8, 11:33 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint), Stephen Hemminger, (Mon Oct 8, 11:42 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint), Miguel Ojeda, (Fri Oct 5, 7:01 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint), Rob Landley, (Sun Oct 7, 5:56 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint), Randy Dunlap, (Sun Oct 7, 6:32 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint), Stephen Hemminger, (Fri Oct 5, 8:34 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] New message-logging API (kprint), Miguel Ojeda, (Sun Oct 7, 6:20 am)