From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23381C433DF for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:55:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D82206B6 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:55:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729372AbgHOVzz (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Aug 2020 17:55:55 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0136.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.136]:38898 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729064AbgHOVzu (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Aug 2020 17:55:50 -0400 Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by smtpgrave04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBF8C1801BE39 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 03:08:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAB625853; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 03:08:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-HE-Tag: linen97_5911ea827002 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2879 Received: from XPS-9350.home (unknown [47.151.133.149]) (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com) by omf02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 03:08:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: POC: Alternative solution: Re: [PATCH 0/4] printk: reimplement LOG_CONT handling From: Joe Perches To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky , Petr Mladek , John Ogness , Sergey Senozhatsky , Steven Rostedt , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , kexec@lists.infradead.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 20:08:02 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <20200717234818.8622-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de> <87blkcanps.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> <20200811160551.GC12903@alley> <20200812163908.GH12903@alley> <87v9hn2y1p.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> <20200813051853.GA510@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain> <875z9nvvl2.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> <20200813084136.GK12903@alley> <20200813115435.GB483@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.4-0ubuntu1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 19:33 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 4:52 PM Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 15:46 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > This is why I think any discussion that says "people should buffer > > > their lines themselves and we should get rid if pr_cont()" is > > > fundamentally broken. > > > > > > Don't go down that hole. I won't take it. It's wrong. > > > > I don't think it's wrong per se. > > It's *absolutely* and 100% wrong. > > Yes, any random *user* of pr_cont() can decide to buffer on it's own. Which I believe is the point of the discussion, not the complete removal of KERN_CONT. > But when the discussion is about printk() - the implementation, not > the users - then it's complete and utter BS to talk about trying to > get rid of pr_cont(). > > See the difference? Sure, but I fail to see where anyone said get rid of pr_cont in this thread. It seems all that was discussed was just various schemes to improve coalescing output.