Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752731AbYJ0QUU (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:20:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750842AbYJ0QUH (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:20:07 -0400 Received: from www.church-of-our-saviour.ORG ([69.25.196.31]:37804 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750795AbYJ0QUF (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:20:05 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:19:23 -0400 From: Theodore Tso To: Martin Schwidefsky Cc: Linus Torvalds , Heiko Carstens , Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT PULL/RESEND] kernel message catalog patches Message-ID: <20081027161923.GE10603@mit.edu> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , Martin Schwidefsky , Linus Torvalds , Heiko Carstens , Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org References: <1224230354.4631.1.camel@localhost> <20081021092148.GB4980@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20081023210446.GA12003@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <1225049195.14057.72.camel@localhost> <1225101688.15777.6.camel@localhost> <1225122726.15777.42.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1225122726.15777.42.camel@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@mit.edu X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1836 Lines: 39 On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 04:52:06PM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > In that case ALL printk messages would suddenly grow a hash. Which > precludes the use of the component name as part of the message since we > would need to add a component name for every single printk - that won't > happen. Just as a suggestion, what about adding the component name the same way we added the priority level --- i.e., by adding an optional prefix, say "{COMPONENT}" to the printk string, which would be before the urgency level marker. If it's not present, printk can generate a 64-bit hash; if it is present, printk can generate the component name followed by a 32-bit hash. That way we can gradually add component names in a completely backwards compatible way, and only to the device drivers that care or want it. > > And as for the actual explanations: either they need to be totally outside > > the kernel (in a project of their own), or they'd need to be "kernel-doc" > > style things that are _in_ the source code. Not in Documentation/. Not > > separate from the printk() that they are associated with. > > The kmsg comments are already formatted in the kernel-doc style and you > can put the comment anywhere in the source file that contains the > printk. The Documentation/ is an extra path where the script looks for > the comments. I can easily drop that part. So yes, the concept is that > you can keep the message comment close to the printk. I would think keeping the kmsg comments as kernel-doc style in the kernel source file makes a huge amount of sense. Regards, - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/