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 0252B3EE for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:51:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD46716E for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:51:10 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 23:51:10 +0900 (KST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Hannes Reinecke In-Reply-To: <562E37D7.9080105@suse.com> Message-ID: References: <562E37D7.9080105@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: theodore.tso@gmail.com, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Late KS topics List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > The talk/proposal should be used to come to a consensus about > restricting printk() to high-priority, small volume messages, > and implement a different call (like log_printk()) for the > low-priority, high-volume traffic. The printk() troubles are not only about the "high volume" vs. "very important", but also about the context of the caller. The optimistic comment above printk() says that it can be called from any context, but that's not true for quite some time already. So if printk() is going to be redesigned to be more lightweight, this aspect definitely needs to be taken into consideration as well. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs