Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:58:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:58:11 -0400 Received: from dsl-213-023-038-092.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.38.92]:31395 "EHLO starship") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:58:10 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Benjamin LaHaise Subject: Re: Large block device patch, part 1 of 9 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 06:05:17 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <825516963@toto.iv> <20020904213156.A6367@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20020904213156.A6367@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 988 Lines: 21 On Thursday 05 September 2002 03:31, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 02:38:58AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > The thing is, I don't see why we should be building castles and cathedrals > > around printk. Just cast to the wider value, if you get it wrong you have > > lost exactly what? Are people feeding the output of dmesg into scripts > > that their systems depend upon? If so, we need to let evolution do its > > work. > > Why do it the broken way when you can do it a non-broken way? Arguing in > favour of having it broken by design isn't something I really understand. Because you're only fixing the printk, and with an inadequate solution at that. Could we please fix something that matters? -- Daniel - 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/