On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 04:52:06PM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
quoted text
> In that case ALL printk messages would suddenly grow a hash. Which
> precludes the use of the component name as part of the message since we
> would need to add a component name for every single printk - that won't
> happen.

Just as a suggestion, what about adding the component name the same
way we added the priority level --- i.e., by adding an optional
prefix, say "{COMPONENT}" to the printk string, which would be before
the urgency level marker.  If it's not present, printk can generate a
64-bit hash; if it is present, printk can generate the component name
followed by a 32-bit hash.

That way we can gradually add component names in a completely
backwards compatible way, and only to the device drivers that care or
want it.

quoted text
> > And as for the actual explanations: either they need to be totally outside 
> > the kernel (in a project of their own), or they'd need to be "kernel-doc" 
> > style things that are _in_ the source code. Not in Documentation/. Not 
> > separate from the printk() that they are associated with.
> 
> The kmsg comments are already formatted in the kernel-doc style and you
> can put the comment anywhere in the source file that contains the
> printk. The Documentation/ is an extra path where the script looks for
> the comments. I can easily drop that part. So yes, the concept is that
> you can keep the message comment close to the printk.

I would think keeping the kmsg comments as kernel-doc style in the
kernel source file makes a huge amount of sense.

Regards,

					- Ted
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/