[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <214bd4fd-7074-8af7-2993-a11b2605346f@deltatee.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 23:53:20 -0700
From: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: Add a warning for log messages that don't
end in a new line
On 26/11/17 11:42 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Although I guess that in that case the whole exercise is pointless?
> Because every print will at runtime be followed by another print, which
> will add either the newline or a continuation.
Yes, in practice the '\n' at the end of every log line is optional based
on what the code actually does. Nothing bad happens if you omit one. But
reviewers still point out that they are required. (That's what started
me on this mess -- because I'd rather know what the correct thing is
before I commit the code for the first time, and not months after the
code reached mainline.)
The reviewers have a really good point though: if a significant fraction
of the log calls have no new line and a majority have them, then making
any kind of change in this area could break things. Not to mention the
ugliness of the inconsistencies everywhere. Also, the more cases that
are "wrong" that get into the kernel the more it confuses people trying
to learn what the "right" thing is.
Honestly, though, I have no dog in this race. I just thought it would be
useful.
Logan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists