On 2010/04/20 15:46, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:23:46 +0100 > > From: Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> > > > > after reading the N hundredth misc@ post with some USB device > > where device/vendor IDs haven't been shown, it seems that printing > > them in the device attach line might save some trouble. > > > > any comments/suggestions? > > I think this makes dmesg uglier. The information is easily available > from usbdevs(8). > > Perhaps the uglification is acceptable for devices that attach as > ugen(4) though.
I agree that it makes dmesg uglier, and the information is easily available. But on the other hand, problem reports are consistently sent without this information (but they do often have dmesg in the first mail), and it would add information to dmesglog. I think there would be relatively small benefit from just doing this for ugen(4); most of the problem reports that this would improve involve devices attaching as umsm(4) or uhid(4).
