On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 14:33 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
quoted text
> On Thursday 31 July 2008 02:56:57 Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > From: Michael Holzheu <holzheu@de.ibm.com>
> > From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
> >
> > Introduce a new family of printk macros which prefixes each kmsg message
> > with a component name and allows to tag the printk with a message id.
> 
> Can you hash the format string to generate the id?  6 hex digits should be 
> enough, and your tool can check for clashes.  As it's bad form to have 
> identical strings for different semantics anyway, this seems to make sense.

If we go with hashes there is one more thing: kmsg(0, <string>)
The variant where we manually assign the message ids knows about the
"special" id 0. There is no documentation required for id 0 and none is
wanted. If we replace the manual ids with hashes this will get lost. You
could argue that a kmsg with id 0 is a normal printk so why not just use
printk? What is lost is the information that this printk has been found
to be not important enough to be documented.

-- 
blue skies,
  Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.


--
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/