On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:33:53 +0200
"Vegard Nossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/8/07, Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 16:50:49 -0500
> > Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday 06 October 2007 1:10:26 am Vegard Nossum wrote:
> > > > On
On 10/8/07, Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 16:50:49 -0500
> Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday 06 October 2007 1:10:26 am Vegard Nossum wrote:
> > > On 10/5/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I made it about halfway through the
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 16:50:49 -0500
Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 06 October 2007 1:10:26 am Vegard Nossum wrote:
> > On 10/5/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The original idea (selectively compile out printk() instances based on
> > > log level to conserve
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 16:50:49 -0500
Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 06 October 2007 1:10:26 am Vegard Nossum wrote:
On 10/5/07, Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The original idea (selectively compile out printk() instances based on
log level to conserve space) is
On 10/8/07, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 16:50:49 -0500
Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 06 October 2007 1:10:26 am Vegard Nossum wrote:
On 10/5/07, Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I made it about halfway through the patch and the
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:33:53 +0200
Vegard Nossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/8/07, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 16:50:49 -0500
Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 06 October 2007 1:10:26 am Vegard Nossum wrote:
On 10/5/07, Rob Landley
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 16:56:01 -0500 Rob Landley wrote:
> On Friday 05 October 2007 6:01:10 pm Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > > *shrug* That doesn't mean my objections are important to anyone else,
> > > just that I don't personally see any reason to be enthusiastic about this
> > > patch.
> >
> > Take a
On Friday 05 October 2007 6:01:10 pm Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > *shrug* That doesn't mean my objections are important to anyone else,
> > just that I don't personally see any reason to be enthusiastic about this
> > patch.
>
> Take a look to other suggested changes, maybe you like some of them
> and
On Saturday 06 October 2007 1:10:26 am Vegard Nossum wrote:
> On 10/5/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The original idea (selectively compile out printk() instances based on
> > log level to conserve space) is explicitly not addressed by this patch,
> > and in fact this patch might
On 10/6/07, Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 01:01:10 +0200
> "Miguel Ojeda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 10/5/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Friday 05 October 2007 2:01:08 am Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think we all are trying
On 10/6/07, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 01:01:10 +0200
Miguel Ojeda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/5/07, Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 05 October 2007 2:01:08 am Miguel Ojeda wrote:
I think we all are trying to give ideas to
On Saturday 06 October 2007 1:10:26 am Vegard Nossum wrote:
On 10/5/07, Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The original idea (selectively compile out printk() instances based on
log level to conserve space) is explicitly not addressed by this patch,
and in fact this patch might actually
On Friday 05 October 2007 6:01:10 pm Miguel Ojeda wrote:
*shrug* That doesn't mean my objections are important to anyone else,
just that I don't personally see any reason to be enthusiastic about this
patch.
Take a look to other suggested changes, maybe you like some of them
and you will
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 16:56:01 -0500 Rob Landley wrote:
On Friday 05 October 2007 6:01:10 pm Miguel Ojeda wrote:
*shrug* That doesn't mean my objections are important to anyone else,
just that I don't personally see any reason to be enthusiastic about this
patch.
Take a look to other
On 10/5/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The original idea (selectively compile out printk() instances based on log
> level to conserve space) is explicitly not addressed by this patch, and in
> fact this patch might actually make it harder to implement (by complicating
> the code).
On 10/5/07, Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The original idea (selectively compile out printk() instances based on log
level to conserve space) is explicitly not addressed by this patch, and in
fact this patch might actually make it harder to implement (by complicating
the code).
This is
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 01:01:10 +0200
"Miguel Ojeda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/5/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 05 October 2007 2:01:08 am Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > >
> > > I think we all are trying to give ideas to improve the current logging
> > > API.
> > >
> > >
On 10/5/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 05 October 2007 2:01:08 am Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> >
> > I think we all are trying to give ideas to improve the current logging API.
> >
> > If something works, it's great; but it doesn't mean that it can't be
> > improved, right?
>
>
> > With the current code, localisation is not possible to do in a sane
> > way.
>
> Run dmesg through a filter in userspace using lots of regular expressions.
> Your average perl junkie could knock out a basic prototype in 20 minutes.
He did say "sane".
Good internationalisation requires you
On Friday 05 October 2007 2:01:08 am Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > Last I checked, the current prink() worked just fine. Why is this _not_
> > the dreaded "infrastructure in search of a use"? What exactly can we
> > _not_ do with the current code? What does this allow us to remove and
> > simplify?
>
On Friday 05 October 2007 8:13:09 am Vegard Nossum wrote:
> On 10/5/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 October 2007 3:17:03 pm Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:04:07 +0200 Vegard Nossum wrote:
> > > > Description: This patch largely implements the kprint
On 10/5/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 04 October 2007 3:17:03 pm Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:04:07 +0200 Vegard Nossum wrote:
> > > Description: This patch largely implements the kprint API as previously
> > > posted to the LKML and described in
On 10/5/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 04 October 2007 3:17:03 pm Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:04:07 +0200 Vegard Nossum wrote:
> > > Description: This patch largely implements the kprint API as previously
> > > posted to the LKML and described in
On 10/5/07, Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 04 October 2007 3:17:03 pm Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:04:07 +0200 Vegard Nossum wrote:
Description: This patch largely implements the kprint API as previously
posted to the LKML and described in
On 10/5/07, Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 04 October 2007 3:17:03 pm Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:04:07 +0200 Vegard Nossum wrote:
Description: This patch largely implements the kprint API as previously
posted to the LKML and described in
On Friday 05 October 2007 8:13:09 am Vegard Nossum wrote:
On 10/5/07, Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 04 October 2007 3:17:03 pm Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:04:07 +0200 Vegard Nossum wrote:
Description: This patch largely implements the kprint API as
On Friday 05 October 2007 2:01:08 am Miguel Ojeda wrote:
Last I checked, the current prink() worked just fine. Why is this _not_
the dreaded infrastructure in search of a use? What exactly can we
_not_ do with the current code? What does this allow us to remove and
simplify?
I'm
With the current code, localisation is not possible to do in a sane
way.
Run dmesg through a filter in userspace using lots of regular expressions.
Your average perl junkie could knock out a basic prototype in 20 minutes.
He did say sane.
Good internationalisation requires you know
On 10/5/07, Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 05 October 2007 2:01:08 am Miguel Ojeda wrote:
I think we all are trying to give ideas to improve the current logging API.
If something works, it's great; but it doesn't mean that it can't be
improved, right?
I'm all for
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 01:01:10 +0200
Miguel Ojeda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/5/07, Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 05 October 2007 2:01:08 am Miguel Ojeda wrote:
I think we all are trying to give ideas to improve the current logging
API.
If something works, it's
On Thursday 04 October 2007 3:17:03 pm Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:04:07 +0200 Vegard Nossum wrote:
> > Description: This patch largely implements the kprint API as previously
> > posted to the LKML and described in Documentation/kprint.txt (see patch).
> >
> > The main purpose of
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:04:07 +0200 Vegard Nossum wrote:
> Description: This patch largely implements the kprint API as previously
> posted to the LKML and described in Documentation/kprint.txt (see patch).
>
> The main purpose of this change is provide a unified logging API to the
> kernel and
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:04:07 +0200 Vegard Nossum wrote:
Description: This patch largely implements the kprint API as previously
posted to the LKML and described in Documentation/kprint.txt (see patch).
The main purpose of this change is provide a unified logging API to the
kernel and at the
On Thursday 04 October 2007 3:17:03 pm Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:04:07 +0200 Vegard Nossum wrote:
Description: This patch largely implements the kprint API as previously
posted to the LKML and described in Documentation/kprint.txt (see patch).
The main purpose of this
34 matches
Mail list logo
