[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101213211531.GA19783@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:15:31 -0800
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Staging: rt2860: include KERN_* in printk
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 09:24:30PM +0100, L. Alberto Giménez wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:30:32AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:58:44AM +0100, L. Alberto Giménez wrote:
> > > Fix checkpatch complains.
> > >
> > > The change of the DBGPRINT_ERR macro causes the change on the callers.
> >
> > What change?
>
> -#define DBGPRINT_ERR(Fmt) \
> -{ \
> - printk("ERROR! "); \
> - printk Fmt; \
> -}
> +#define DBGPRINT_ERR(fmt, args...) printk(KERN_ERR fmt, ##args)
>
> Recommended by Joe. I agree that it is cleaner and more compliant.
Not really, it should be replaced with dev_err() or some such universal
replacement.
> That macro needed that the callers use two parens, as in:
>
> DBGPRINT_ERR(("MlmeInit failed, Status[=0x%08x]\n", Status));
>
> With the introduced change, all calls to the DBGPRINT_ERR macro must be
> translated to a regular single-parenthesized.
>
> DBGPRINT_ERR("NICInitializeAdapter failed, Status[=0x%08x]\n", Status);
>
> Yes, it's crap code, but I own an eeepc 901 and this was the perfect excuse to
> get my harnds dirty :)
That's fine.
How about splitting just the DBGPRINT_ERR() change into one patch, and
the other printk cleanups into another one? Remember, only do one thing
per patch please.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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