On Aug 13, 2008 9:15 PM, "Rusty Russell" <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:

quoted text
> On Wednesday 13 August 2008 17:04:11 Tim Hockin wrote:
>> But there are a number of places that have ...Well, if they're to be the
>> same messages under the manual-numbering scheme,
>
> someone has to verify that they are really the same anyway.  Not much more
> work to simply fix them in that case, is it?
>
> If it improves normal kernel messages, then everyone wins.

Oh, I agree with that.  I personally don't care much for the msg ID part of
this patch (I mean I don't care either way).  It might be nice to have man
pages, but I just see it becoming out of sync, duplicate numbers, etc.

What I want to see is the elevation of these call-sites from "it's just a
printk()" to "it's a report-worthy event and part of our user<->kernel API".  I
want people to add them when it's appropriate and then not change the strings
later.  I don't care if, in the end, they are structured strings.  I do care if
I have to run dozens of regexes against thousands of log-lines on thousands of
systems.

:)

Tim
--
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/