[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170530131347.23024992@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:13:47 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
Steven Miao <realmz6@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the rcu tree
Hi Joe,
On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:20:25 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 19:14 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 06:54:26PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 11:40 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Hi Paul,
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:15:05 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone see any other options?
> > >
> > > My preferred option would be removing pr_fmt
> > > and adding a couple new macros.
> >
> > Not sure how to evaluate yours and Stephen's changes, but I reverted my
> > conversion to a macro based on the hope that something good will come
> > of this effort. ;-)
>
> Stephen's suggestion makes the format and arguments
> have an apparent mismatch. What I suggested hides
> the "module %s: ", mod->name bit in the macros (like
> the older pr_fmt use), allows anyone else to #define
> pr_fmt to taste, and keeps the format and arguments in
> agreement.
Yours is much better, mine was just a quick hack ... consider yours
Acked-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Powered by blists - more mailing lists