Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1497492

Re: [GIT PULL] trivial for 4.9

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 12:22 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org> wrote:
> > Colin Ian King (5):
> >       netfilter: Add missing \n to pr_err() message
> >       agp/intel: add missing \n to end of dev_emerg message
> >       lightnvm: add missing \n to end of dev_err message
> >       nvme: add missing \n to end of dev_warn message
> 
> 
> We really shouldn't be needing these final '\n' characters any more, afaik.
> 
> If the next printk isn't done by the same process, and doesn't have a
> KERN_CONT, the printk machinery should add the newline on its own.
> 
> I realize that people have been adding these '\n' characters for a
> while, but is there actually any point to it? They make the code less
> legible, imho. And we actually have a number of logging functions that
> explicitly don't want the newline (eg ext4_warning/error()), so it's
> actually more consistent to *not* have a newline than it is to have
> one.

Not remotely true.

It's _way_ more consistent to use a newline termination.
Macros without the newline are _far_ less common than those
with newlines.

Any printk without a KERN_<level> prefix, and there
are still many of those, can cause random interleaving.

> And if those '\n' characters actually make a difference, that should
> be noted. Because that would imply that the printk logic isn't working
> right.

Not at all.  Until printk KERN_<level> uses are mandated,
then these newlines are still useful.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[GIT PULL] trivial for 4.9 Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org> - 2016-10-07 11:00 +0200
  Re: [GIT PULL] trivial for 4.9 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-10-07 21:30 +0200
    Re: [GIT PULL] trivial for 4.9 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2016-10-07 22:10 +0200
      Re: [GIT PULL] trivial for 4.9 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-10-07 22:20 +0200
        Re: [GIT PULL] trivial for 4.9 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-10-07 22:30 +0200
          Re: [GIT PULL] trivial for 4.9 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2016-10-07 22:40 +0200
            Re: [GIT PULL] trivial for 4.9 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-10-07 23:10 +0200
              Re: [GIT PULL] trivial for 4.9 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-10-07 23:40 +0200
                Re: [GIT PULL] trivial for 4.9 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2016-10-08 09:40 +0200
                Re: [GIT PULL] trivial for 4.9 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2016-10-10 07:50 +0200
              Re: [GIT PULL] trivial for 4.9 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2016-10-07 23:50 +0200
                Re: [GIT PULL] trivial for 4.9 Tony Luck <tony.luck@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 01:10 +0200
                Re: [GIT PULL] trivial for 4.9 Tony Luck <tony.luck@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 01:20 +0200
                Re: [GIT PULL] trivial for 4.9 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-10-08 01:40 +0200
                Re: [GIT PULL] trivial for 4.9 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2016-10-08 15:30 +0200
        Re: [GIT PULL] trivial for 4.9 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2016-10-07 22:30 +0200

csiph-web