Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/3] printk: convert byte-buffer to variable-length record buffer

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:35:07PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 16:06 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartmann wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 04:02:40PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Changing printk semantics and trying to stabilize
> >> > >> printk message content are bad ideas though.
> >> > >
> >> > > Again, nobody talks about content of here.
> >> >
> >> > printk_time=1 does not work anymore with this patch on serial console.
> >>
> >> Known issue, I think Kay is working on the solution for this right
> >> now...
> >
> > Sure, and this seems to work for me.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kay
> >
> >
> > From: Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org>
> > Subject: printk() - restore timestamp printing at console output
> >
> > The output of the timestamps got lost with the conversion of the
> > kmsg buffer to records; restore the old behavior.
> >
> > Document, that CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME now only controls the output of
> > the timestamps in the syslog() system call and on the console, and
> > not the recording of the timestamps.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org>
> > ---
> 
> This has a small issue with the way timing is printed compared to how
> it worked previously.
> 
> Consider the following case:
> 
>     printk("\n foo \n bar \n zoot")
> 
> Previously, you would see timing on each line of the print, but now
> you see it only on the first.

What code does this?  Shouldn't those be individual printk lines?  I
didn't think that type of line would ever work properly in the past.

thanks,

greg k-h