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...
Hey Michal. "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. cheers, Joe
