Jason Thorpe <thorpej@nas.nasa.gov> writes:

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

huh?  So why not add the printf(3) formats that kprintf(9) doesn't yet
implement, like %X (Mike Long's pet incompatiblity?) and %<N>.<N>s (my
favourite tripping point?)

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

Hey! I kind of resent that!  I *don't* think I complain about
"gratuitous" changes. 

I've been as anti-nochangenik as anyone on several issues.  I do
`complain' about changes that don't actually achieve all the things
they're claimed to, or that (IMHO) twist the kernel design towards
ends that are overly port-specific or hardware-specific.

I've also been very much *pro* the architectural changes you've made.

Jason, if you want to throw ad-hominem argument around, why don't we
do so off a public list?