2011/2/28 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hello,
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 09:57:49AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> - printk("\n");
>> - printk("%spcpu-alloc: ", lvl);
>> + printk(KERN_CONT "\n");
>> + printk("%spcpu-alloc:", lvl);
So I hate this kind of "mindless search-and-replace" patch.
The whole point is that with the modern printk semantics, the above
kind of crazy cdoe shouldn't be needed. You should be able to just
write
printk("%spcpu-alloc:", lvl);
without that "\n" at all, because printk() will insert the \n if
necessary. So the concept of
printk(KERN_CONT "\n")
is just crazy: you're saying "I want to continue the line, in order to
print a newline". Whaa?
>> - printk("[%0*d] ", group_width, group);
>> + printk(KERN_CONT " [%0*d]", group_width, group);
>> - printk("%0*d ", cpu_width,
>> + printk(KERN_CONT " %0*d", cpu_width,
>> - printk("%s ", empty_str);
>> + printk(KERN_CONT " %s", empty_str);
These look ok, but:
>> - printk("\n");
>> + printk(KERN_CONT "\n");
Same deal. Why do KERN_CONT + "\n"?
Yes, yes, it does have semantic meaning ("do newline _now_"), and can
matter if you are going to use KERN_CONT exclusively around it. But it
still smells like just being silly to me. The point of the printk
changes was to make things simpler. I really would suggest just
removing those KERN_CONT "\n" lines. Doesn't it end up looking fine
that way too?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href