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]

Message-Id: <20120313150316.6ae19b95.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:03:16 -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 18:01:44 -0400
"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 02:55:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Sure but if a particular kernel file or subsystem is _not_ using
> pr_foo(), having a checkpatch which tries to force everyone to use
> pr_foo() is going to be really annoying to me as a maintainer...
> 

Yes, that's what I fear.  That's why I'm testing 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/