On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 14:33 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Thursday 31 July 2008 02:56:57 Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > From: Michael Holzheu <holzheu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Introduce a new family of printk macros which prefixes each kmsg message > > with a component name and allows to tag the printk with a message id. > > Can you hash the format string to generate the id? 6 hex digits should be > enough, and your tool can check for clashes. As it's bad form to have > identical strings for different semantics anyway, this seems to make sense. If we go with hashes there is one more thing: kmsg(0, <string>) The variant where we manually assign the message ids knows about the "special" id 0. There is no documentation required for id 0 and none is wanted. If we replace the manual ids with hashes this will get lost. You could argue that a kmsg with id 0 is a normal printk so why not just use printk? What is lost is the information that this printk has been found to be not important enough to be documented. -- 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
