On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 10:01 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> 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.
No, there are more printks in the system then just dev_printk. The kmsg interface
is supposed to cover all of them.
> > 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()?
It is fixed in the macro for standard kmsg printks, there the message
tag is the first field. It is fixed in the macro for the dev_printk
variant of the kmsg message, there it is the third field. This mismatch
I refer to as not have a fixed position, for some message (the standard
ones) it is at the start of the final message, for others (the
dev_printk ones) it is in the middle of the message. Not good.
> > 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 :)
Then lets look at how this will look like. First a standard printk
message and its conversion to kmsg:
printk(KERN_WARNING
"cpcmd: could not allocate response buffer\n");
vs.
kmsg_warn(1, "The cpcmd kernel function failed "
"to allocate a response buffer\n");
The message comes out as
cpcmd: cound not allocate response buffer
vs.
cpcmd.1: The cpcmd kernel function failed to allocate a response buffer
As an example for a dev_printk I use a message from the zfcp driver:
dev_warn(&req->adapter->ccw_device->dev,
"The local link is down: no light detected.\n");
vs.
kmsg_dev_warn(27, &req->adapter->ccw_device->dev,
"The local link is down: no light detected.\n");
The dev_printk versus the original kmsg macro comes out as
zfcp: 0.0.1234: The local link is down: no light detected.
vs.
zfcp.27: 0.0.1234: The local link is down: no light detected.
If I would just use dev_printk in kmsg_dev_warn as proposed by Greg:
zfcp: 0.0.1234: zfcp.27: The local link is down: no light detected.
If the message component is skipped from the message tag:
zfcp: 0.0.1234: 27: The local link is down: no light detected.
Is it just me who thinks that the later two message variants are crap?
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
--
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
