Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 20:36:25 +0000 From: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> To: dieterbsd@engineer.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: *printf(9) and PRINTF_BUFR_SIZE Message-ID: <20110409203625.GA50231@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <8CDC50749BB9940-18FC-38C6@web-mmc-m02.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CDC50749BB9940-18FC-38C6@web-mmc-m02.sysops.aol.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat Apr 9 11, dieterbsd@engineer.com wrote: > While working on other problems with *printf(9), log(9), etc. > I stumbled upon: > > options PRINTF_BUFR_SIZE=128 # Prevent printf output being > interspersed. > > Question 1: Am I correct in thinking that PRINTF_BUFR_SIZE is supposed > to prevent this: > > ada2: 300.000MB/s transfuhub2: 3 ports with 3 removable, self powered > ers (SATA 2.x, UDMA6, PIO 8192bytes) > ada2: Command Queueing enabled > > Question 2: Why is vprintf() the only function that does this buffering? > As far as I can tell, the various functions that call kvprintf() > directly > without going through vprintf() do not get buffered. I'm thinking that > kvprintf() would be a better place for the buffering. Or would this > break > something? i remember this issue was discussed a few times before. you might want to take a look at [1]. cheers. alex [1] http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTinPhcc8Z_BdvoEQUv-ZXlHAYOTQJwlUQDVO8iJ9 > > -- a13x
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110409203625.GA50231>