On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 17:28 +0200, Utz Bacher wrote: > Martin Schwidefsky wrote on 25.08.2008 17:56:30: > > 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. > > what about a kmsg(<string>) and a kmsg_not_for_doc(<string>) with only kmsg > being hashed and used for man pages. There might be better names for these > functions, though. That would double the number of macros we'd have to define. Not really something I would like to do. Only if there is no other way .. -- 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
