On 9/28/20 8:52 AM, Tony Asleson wrote: > On 9/26/20 6:53 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> I suggest that these 2 new function names should be >> printk_durable_name() >> and >> printk_durable_name_ratelimited() >> >> Those names would be closer to the printk* family of >> function names. Of course, you can find exceptions to this, >> like dev_printk(), but that is in the dev_*() family of >> function names. > > durable_name_printk has the same argument signature as dev_printk with > it's intention that in the future it might be a candidate to get changed > to dev_printk. The reason I'm not using dev_printk is to avoid changing > the content of the message users see. > > With this clarification, do you still suggest the rename or maybe > suggest something different? Since you seem to bring it up, "durable_name" is a bit long IMO. But yes, I still prefer printk_durable_name() etc. The other order seems backwards to me. But that's still just an opinion. > dev_id_printk > id_printk > ... > > I'm also thinking that maybe we should add a new function do everything > dev_printk does, but without prepending the device driver name and > device name to the message. So we can get the metadata adds without > having the content of the message change. thanks. -- ~Randy Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
