Re: [v5 08/12] Add durable_name_printk

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Git]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Newbie]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux