Message-ID: <1461205033.1918.6.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 0/3] printk: Make printk() completely async
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:17:13 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20160421021440.GB655@swordfish>
References: <1460050307-3718-1-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
	 <20160416025529.GA567@swordfish> <1460785489.19090.71.camel@perches.com>
	 <20160421021440.GB655@swordfish>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 819
Lines: 20

On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 11:14 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (04/15/16 22:44), Joe Perches wrote:
> [..]
> > > Sir, is there anything else you want me to improve in this patch
> > > set?
> > I'm not sir, but my preference would be to move as much of the
> > async/thread functionality as possible into a separate file.
> hm, we are talking about some 50-60 lines of code in total (seems
> that the patch set adds more comments than code), but your point
> is interesting. let's say, if there will be more opinions that it
> better land in async_printk.{c,h} files, then I'll take a look on
> it. how does it sound?

I think printk.c is pretty large, complicated and should
be broken up into several bits.

I did that once, but it's a real development timing issue?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/17/41

cheers, Joe