linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] drivers/ide Convert printk(KERN_<foo> to pr

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 18 May 2009 08:41:28 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] drivers/ide Convert printk(KERN_<foo> to pr_<foo>(

On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 16:12 +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Monday 18 May 2009 04:21:08 Joe Perches wrote:
> > Mostly mechanical conversion of printk's
> Hmm.. less mechanical conversion using also dev_*() macros where suitable
> would be much better...
> How's about fixing pr_devel() which currently doesn't seem to be used
> by anything inside kernel to not depend on DEBUG in separate pre-patch
> and then using it instead of pr_debug()?

How about deferring the "printk(KERN_DEBUG" to something else
and doing the mechanical conversion to core as a first pass,
followed by core pr_<foo> to dev_<foo> where appropriate
as a second pass?

What do you think is appropriate for pr_<foo> to dev_<foo>
conversions?


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/