Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 08:55:26 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@ericsson.com>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
CC: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] include/linux/kernel.h: Add config option for
 pr_fmt(fmt)
Message-ID: <20101108165526.GA20229@ericsson.com>
References: <1287713982.16920.39.camel@Joe-Laptop>
 <20101026110335.3a4c7679@endymion.delvare>
 <1288201301.4145.122.camel@Joe-Laptop>
 <20101028093529.503c3a28@endymion.delvare>
 <1288252476.1836.9.camel@Joe-Laptop>
 <20101028104354.6aaca07c@endymion.delvare>
 <1288390250.28828.228.camel@Joe-Laptop>
 <20101108133342.7217866c@endymion.delvare>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20101108133342.7217866c@endymion.delvare>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1793
Lines: 40

On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 07:33:42AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Joe,
> 
> Sorry for the late answer.
> 
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:10:50 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 10:43 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > Besides, linux-next is meant for integration testing. We already know
> > > that the change will integrate fine, in that it won't cause a build
> > > failure or runtime crash. We also know that, without the tree-wide
> > > cleanup of many driver, the change will cause duplicate prefixes in
> > > many messages.
> > > 
> > > There's little point in testing something we know will not be good
> > > enough. Better prepare all the driver patches, and test the whole thing
> > > when it's ready. I know it will be a very large and intrusive patchset,
> > > but this can certainly be done with Andrew's support.
> > 
> > I think you underestimate the time, effort and acceptance
> > levels by the various arches and maintainers required.
> > 
> > Also, it's not just drivers, it's arch, lib, and kernel.
> > (...)
> 
> I've had time to think about it all some more, and I have to admit that
> my counter-proposal doesn't really fly. Changing everything at once
> throughout the whole kernel tree is simply too difficult.
> 
> So I hate to admit it, but your initial proposal was certainly better,
> because it can be done one subsystem at a time. So I think we should
> forget about my objections and go on with your first patchset.
> 
I pretty much came to the same conclusion. No objections here anymore either.

Guenter
--
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/