On Thu, 2016-10-13 at 12:04 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 13-10-16 02:29:46, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-10-13 at 08:26 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > I think they are not critical and can be fix once somebody notices.
> > As do I, but Linus objected to applying a patch when Colin Ian King
> > noticed one.
> > I think the 250,000 or so uses with newlines are enough of a
> > precedence to keep using newlines everywhere.
> or simply fix missing KERN_CONTs and simply do not add any new missing \n
> > Now we'll have to have patches adding hundreds to thousands of the
> > missing KERN_CONTs for continuation lines that weren't previously a
> > problem in logging output but are now.
> I would be really surprised if we really had that many continuation
> lines. They should be avoided as much as possible. Hundreds of thousands
> just sounds more than over exaggerated...
"Hundreds _to_ thousands" of instances. Not "hundreds _of_ thousands".
> Not requiring \n at the end of strings just makes a lot of sense if we
> have a KERN_CONT with a well defined semantic.
True enough. And I am not at all arguing against having a
well defined KERN_CONT semantic.
But using KERN_CONT alone is not enough information to be able to
perfectly reassemble message fragments post hoc given multiple
threads possibly interleaving KERN_CONT.
I do think the inconsistency of mixing styles with and without
newlines not particularly good.