On Aug 13, 2008 9:15 PM, "Rusty Russell" <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday 13 August 2008 17:04:11 Tim Hockin wrote: >> But there are a number of places that have ...Well, if they're to be the >> same messages under the manual-numbering scheme, > > someone has to verify that they are really the same anyway. Not much more > work to simply fix them in that case, is it? > > If it improves normal kernel messages, then everyone wins. Oh, I agree with that. I personally don't care much for the msg ID part of this patch (I mean I don't care either way). It might be nice to have man pages, but I just see it becoming out of sync, duplicate numbers, etc. What I want to see is the elevation of these call-sites from "it's just a printk()" to "it's a report-worthy event and part of our user<->kernel API". I want people to add them when it's appropriate and then not change the strings later. I don't care if, in the end, they are structured strings. I do care if I have to run dozens of regexes against thousands of log-lines on thousands of systems. :) Tim -- 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
