linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Suggest pr_<level> over printk(KERN

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, 13 Mar 2012 14:55:17 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Suggest pr_<level> over printk(KERN_<LEVEL>

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:05:14 -0400
"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:23:03PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Suggest the shorter pr_<level> instead of printk(KERN_<LEVEL>.
> > 
> > Prefer to use pr_<level> over bare printks.
> > Prefer to use pr_warn over pr_warning.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> 
> Is this even worth a warning?   I don't think so....

mm...  probably.  It's not a thing I ever bother mentioning in review,
but I guess pr_foo() is a bit denser, and doing the same thing in two
different ways is always an irritant.

I'll put the patch in my tree for a while and see how irritating I find
it ;)

--
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/