On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 10:31:41AM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 13:07 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > Using dev_printk won't work because of the order of the elements of the > > > > > printk. The kmsg tag should not have a "random" position in the printk > > > > > but should be the first element. If we use dev_printk the kmsg tag will > > > > > be the third element, for other kmsg printks it will be the first. In > > > > > addition the kmsg message tag for the device drivers already includes > > > > > the driver name .. > > > > > > > > But the structure of dev_printk() is well definied and should be pretty > > > > trival to parse even with missing fields. > > > > > > The missing field is the message tag. Which is the key for the message > > > lookup. As far as the kmsg catalog is concerned this is a pretty > > > important field that may not be missing from the printk itself. > > > > No, I mean use dev_printk() as the base for your logging macro. Add > > your message tag as the first field after the dev_printk() information. > > Hmm, you are proposing to introduce a second format for the kmsg > messages to avoid the need for some more printk wrapper macros. To me it > seems that this has two problems: No, only 1 format, use dev_printk() instead of printk() in your macro. > 1) The message tag is for the user of the system. If it does not have a > fixed position it gets confusing. How would it not be in a fixed position with dev_printk()? > 2) The message tag for a driver message usually already includes the > driver name, the dev_printk will print it again. This is ugly and > reduces the quality of the message. Then the message needs to change and remove that "driver name", as it is redundant, saving a tiny ammount of space :) thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
