On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On 26/11/17 11:42 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: > > Although I guess that in that case the whole exercise is pointless? > > Because every print will at runtime be followed by another print, which > > will add either the newline or a continuation. > > Yes, in practice the '\n' at the end of every log line is optional based > on what the code actually does. Nothing bad happens if you omit one. But > reviewers still point out that they are required. (That's what started > me on this mess -- because I'd rather know what the correct thing is > before I commit the code for the first time, and not months after the > code reached mainline.) > > The reviewers have a really good point though: if a significant fraction > of the log calls have no new line and a majority have them, then making > any kind of change in this area could break things. Not to mention the > ugliness of the inconsistencies everywhere. Also, the more cases that > are "wrong" that get into the kernel the more it confuses people trying > to learn what the "right" thing is. The problem is probably mostly for the non-standard functions, where a lot of function/macro unfolding is often required to see what is really going on. julia > > Honestly, though, I have no dog in this race. I just thought it would be > useful. > > Logan > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
