Rename dprintf() to Avoid Clash with the POSIX.1-2008 Function

[bonefish]

POSIX.1-2008 introduces the functions [v]dprintf(). To avoid a name clash when we implement them, the kernel dprintf() should be renamed to debug_printf(). We can continue provide the old symbol for binary compatibility.

[waddlesplash]

Reverting earlier milestone change

[waddlesplash]

Why rename it to "debug_printf" instead of just "printf", anyway?

[X512]

Is it really needed? Kernel is not expected to provide full POSIX support.

[waddlesplash]

The problem also applies to libroot.

[mmlr]

Replying to waddlesplash:

The problem also applies to libroot.

No, in userland it is already called debug_printf and libroot exports the other dprintf(fd, format, ...) from stdio.

[pulkomandy]

It's not a "needed" change, but just to avoid confusion by having two different functions in two different places doing different things.

The kernel is of course not implementing the full POSIX API, but we at least try to keep it as close as reasonably possible as it makes development a lot easier and removes a lot of "oh no I'm writing kernel code, I need magic incantations" feeling by having a subset of the same APIs available.

[axeld]

It would also be useful to rename the function to easily enable building kernel stuff that uses dprintf() in userland.

[axeld]

Anyone else in favor of printf instead of debug_printf?

[axeld]

I would stick to debug_printf, as it's already called this way in userland, too.

[pulkomandy]

I don't think the name is very important, as long as we avoid confusion with dprintf. Soe if debug_printf is more popular, let's go with that!

[waddlesplash]

I would stick to debug_printf, as it's already called this way in userland, too.

But then we'd have a clash between debug_printf() in libroot and debug_printf() in kernelland-emu for tests. At least with printf, the output will go to stdio, rather than to syslog.