[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ddf9b54b-34d9-c1e2-e34f-a1cc055b8cf7@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 19:53:49 +0200
From: Helge Deller <deller@....de>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
James Bottomley <jejb@...isc-linux.org>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 7/7] checkpatch: add pF/pf deprecation warning
On 20.09.2017 19:38, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 01:29 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>> We deprecated '%pF/%pf' printk specifiers, since '%pS/%ps' is now smart
>> enough to handle function pointer dereference on platforms where such
>> dereference is required.
>>
>> checkpatch warning example:
>>
>> WARNING: Use '%pS/%ps' instead. This pointer extension was deprecated: '%pF'
>
> If this series is accepted, I think this message
> is unclear and would prefer something like:
Is it worth to mention, that it's still needed in older kernels?
Just in case some patch get's backported.
Helge
Powered by blists - more mailing lists