From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DFE7B76 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:17:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vps0.lunn.ch (vps0.lunn.ch [178.209.37.122]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0798D13A for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:17:57 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 18:17:53 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Hannes Reinecke Message-ID: <20170619161753.GO3786@lunn.ch> References: <20170619052146.GA2889@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain> <20170619103912.2edbf88a@gandalf.local.home> <20170619152055.GM3786@lunn.ch> <01a7d603-c0a2-7aae-8c8d-587063da5e61@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01a7d603-c0a2-7aae-8c8d-587063da5e61@suse.com> Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] printk redesign List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > I was under the impression that we do this anyway; even ATM every line > in the printk buffer is prefixed with a timestamp. What is the granularity of the timestamp? I'm talking about where every second or third line is a printk of some sort. It could be some of them are existing _err(), some are added _dbg() etc. Is the timestamp sufficient to put such output back into order? Andrew