On Mon, 12 May 1997 16:17:00 -0700 
 Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU> wrote:

 > I was thinkng more of the higher-level argument over overloading the
 > name printf() in userspace and in the kernel; including the
 > __KPRINTF__ATTRIBUTE argument too.  I don't really want to open that
 > can of worms again.  

...Jonathan, we're actively trying to get rid of the kernel printf
extensions.  In case you don't remember, we did:

	printf -> kprintf -> printf

not terribly long ago.

 > But the source-code changes *are* mechanical. They could be done with
 > sed.  The cost of making the change simply isn't a valid argument
 > against renaming the kernel printf() to something else.

Yes it is.  "We want to make the kernel programming environment =more=
like userland, not less."

And, for someone who complains so much about "gratuitous" change, I'm
actually quite amazed to see you suggesting sed'ing printf -> kprintf.

Jason R. Thorpe                                       thorpej@nas.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center                               Home: 408.866.1912
NAS: M/S 258-6                                          Work: 415.604.0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035                                Pager: 415.428.6939