[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1474995383.2731.17.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 09:56:23 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>
Cc: Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm: Simplify logging macros, convert DRM_NOTE to
DRM_NOTICE
On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 17:36 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 27 September 2016 at 17:04, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 11:58 -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > > > Use a bit more consistent style with kernel loglevels
> > > I'm not convinced this is worth doing if we're going to keep the
> > > WARN/WARNING discrepancy, and I don't think we should switch DRM_WARN
> > > to DRM_WARNING since it's so widely used.
> > There is no DRM_WARN inconsistency.
> DRM_WARN is to DRM_WARNING like DRM_INFO is to DRM_INFORMATION and
> DRM_NOTE is to DRM_NOTICE...
DRM_INFORMATION doesn't exist in the kernel tree.
> is what I'm thinking and seemingly so
> does Sean. Fwiw that part seem cosmetic/unrelated to the rest of the
> patch, so it might be worth keeping separate ?
To me, simplifying the macro means using the common kernel
macro forms.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists