[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1242662198.6347.14.camel@mulgrave.int.hansenpartnership.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:56:37 +0000
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
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 08:41 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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 exactly is the point of a mechanical conversion from
printk(KERN_ ...) to pr_...?
I can see the value of the pr_ macros from new code in that the
temptation to put a comma after KERN_.. for some people is irresistible
so it's an interface that's very easy to misuse, but given that we have
correct uses, why convert them?
James
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists