On (19/11/08 14:04), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> I agree that it is complicated to pass the loglevel as
> a parameter. It would be better define the default
> log level for a given code section. It might be stored
> in task_struct for the normal context and in per-CPU
> variables for interrupt contexts.
I do recall that we talked about per-CPU printk state bit which would
start/end "just print it" section. We probably can extend it to "just
log_store" type of functionality. Doesn't look like a very bad idea.
"This task/context is in trouble, whatever it printk()-s is important".
Per-console loglevel also might help sometimes. Slower consoles would
->write() only critical messages, faster consoles everything.
Passing log_level as part of message payload, which printk machinery
magically hides is not entirely exciting. What we have in the code
now - printk("%s blah\n", lvl) - is not what we see in the logs.
Because the leading '%s' becomes special. And printk()/sprintf()
documentation should reflect that: '%s' prints a string, but sometimes
it doesn't.
-ss
_______________________________________________
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
