[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpond16U2QbyJkKqjxemGKbJLn=-fYjgaMiFiQUUfz75+dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:58:17 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Arvind Chauhan <Arvind.Chauhan@....com>,
Linaro Networking <linaro-networking@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/38] tick cleanups and bugfixes
On 15 April 2014 05:08, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> And that's wrong to begin with.
>
> Bugfixes first and then all other stuff. We dont want dependencies of
> bugfixes on cleanups, reordering of code ...
Correct, should have taken care of this initially :(
> Now looking at the thing some more, it contains gems like this:
>
> - printk(KERN_ERR "tick-broadcast: ignoring broadcast for "
> - "offline CPU #%d\n", *oncpu);
> + printk(KERN_ERR "tick-broadcast: ignoring broadcast for offline CPU #%d\n",
> + *oncpu);
>
> If you fix that checkpatch.pl line wrap issue, why do you not change
> printk(KERN_ERR) to pr_err() as well?
>
> checkpatch.pl is happy, right?
I did this for one patch and missed it for other.. I will fix all printk's in
kernel/time/ now :)
> Please send me the next series in the following way:
>
> - send a bug fix series, which does nothing else than fixing bugs.
Right.
> when that is applied, then
>
> - send a small batch of improvements for a particular issue and not a
> mixed bag of random patches.
Okay.. Thanks.
--
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