Re: [patch-2.3.40-pre6] kzalloc() (ala kmem_zalloc() of SVR4)

[Jeff Garzik]

Bill Wendling wrote:
> 
> Also sprach Matthew Wilcox:
> } Why do we have printk anyway?  It serves the same purpose as printf and
> } is even tagged as `taking arguments like printf' for gcc's type-checking
> } benefit.  It makes it harder to take large chunks of code and move it
> } to userspace for testing (ok, i can #define printk printf, but still).
> } Just Hysterical Raisins?

> Are you suggesting using printf instead? Surely you jest. libc is not
> compiled into the kernel, of course.

libc has absolutely nothing to do with a kernel patch which does
"s/printk/printf/"

However, I don't think the change is worth the hassle...  Having code
which is common code between userspace and kernelspace is nice when
possible, but I don't believe in bending over backwards to support such
scenarios...

	Jeff

-- 
Jeff Garzik         | Andre the Giant has a posse.
Building 1024       |
MandrakeSoft, Inc.  |