Re: [GIT PULL/RESEND] kernel message catalog patches

[Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:19:23 -0400
Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

> 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.

As I said a few months ago, please make it "almost kernel-doc style"
but something that can be distinguished from the current kernel-doc.
They aren't quite the same thing AFAICT.

-- 
~Randy