On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 4:54 AM Sergey Senozhatsky
<sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I think what Linus said a long time ago was that the initial purpose of
> pr_cont was
>
> pr_info("Initialize feature foo...");
> if (init_feature_foo() == 0)
> pr_cont("ok\n");
> else
> pr_cont("not ok\n");
>
> And if init_feature_foo() crashes the kernel then the first printk()
> form panic() will flush the cont buffer.
Right.
This is why I think any discussion that says "people should buffer
their lines themselves and we should get rid if pr_cont()" is
fundamentally broken.
Don't go down that hole. I won't take it. It's wrong.
The fact is, pr_cont() goes back to the original kernel. No, it wasn't
pr_cont() back then, and no, there were no actual explicit markers for
"this is a continuation" at all, it was all just "the last printk
didn't have a newline, so we continue where we left off".
We've added pr_cont (and KERN_CONT) since then, and I realize that a
lot of people hate the complexity it introduces, but it's a
fundamental complexity that you have to live with.
If you can't live with pr_cont(), you shouldn't be working on
printk(), and find some other area of the kernel that you _can_ live
with.
It really is that simple.
Linus
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
