On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Joe Perches wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 15:38 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > And so far no behavior has changed.  But now the _fun_ part is, you can add a 
> > config symbol for "what is the minimum loglevel I care about?"  Set that as a 
> > number from 0-9.  And then you can define the printk to do:
> > 
> > #define printk(level, str, ...) \
> >   do { \
> >     if (level < CONFIG_PRINTK_DOICARE) \
> >       actual_printk("<" #level ">" str, __VA_ARGS__); \
> >   } while(0);
> > 
> > And viola (however you spell that, I think I'm using the stringed instrument 
> 
> > But this doesn't _completely_ eliminate 
> > printks, so you can still get the panic() calls and such.  You tweak precisly 
> > how much bloat you want, using the granularity information that's already 
> > there in the source code...
> > Opinions?
> 
> I'd rather take the opportunity to convert all the printks to
> use pr_<level>.  That way, you can pick'n'choose if you want
> arbitrary combinations of KERN_<level> compiled in or not.

Or:

    if ((1 << level) & CONFIG_PRINTK_MASK)
	actual_printk("<" #level ">" str, __VA_ARGS__);

But it would indeed be nice to have all of pr_<level> (and not only pr_info()
and pr_debug()) anyway.

With kind regards,
 
Geert Uytterhoeven
Software Architect

Sony Network and Software Technology Center Europe
The Corporate Village