linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] include/linux/kernel.h: Move logging bits to include/linux/logging.h

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:	Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:08:40 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] include/linux/kernel.h: Move logging bits to
 include/linux/logging.h

On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 16:00 -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 11:17:56AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Differences in logging.h to original kernel.h
> > were done for cleanliness and checkpatch.
> Yet another reason why I detest mindless use of checkpatch.

If it makes you happier, I didn't use it here nor do I
generally use checkpatch, (just ask Andrew Morton), I just
wrote that more as a shorthand for kernel style conformance.

> I **really** dislike patches that try to do any kind of
> cleanup (checkpatch.pl or otherwise) at the same time as they move
> code around.

So fine, I'll do a minimal code movement only patch
followed by a style cleansing patch.

Anyone else have an opinion on using logging.h vs printk.h
as an include name?


--
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/