we are dealing with companies like IBM which have been creating massive binders full of kernel message documentation for several decades.
Do they still? That practice began when computer storage was too expensive to keep all that information online. Today, a message manual increases cost for everyone involved. And that's true even if the manual is stored online.
It irks me endlessly that software engineers seem to think they have to pay by the word for error messages, and that it's somehow undignified to come right out and tell the user what's going on. Here we have a proposal to send the user on a treasure hunt to find out why his module wouldn't load. The whole paragraph explaining the XPRAM devices problem could be right in the printk, and the second paragraph giving advice about it would not be unappreciated, right there in the log, either.
I understand the laziness that makes people not compose error messages, but in this case, the developer does write the message; he just sequesters it.
There are some messages that happen so normally that a full explanation would be an inappropriate use of message space, but the example isn't one of those.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds