linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] ARM: s3c24xx: formatting cleanup in mach-mini2440.c

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 17 Sep 2018 10:33:03 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     sed@...e.fr
Cc:     joe@...ches.com, kgene@...nel.org, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        "linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] ARM: s3c24xx: formatting cleanup in mach-mini2440.c

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 22:24, Cedric Roux <sed@...e.fr> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 09/12/2018 09:21 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 23:54 +0200, Cedric Roux wrote:
> >> Running:
> >>     scripts/checkpatch.pl -f arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> >> revealed several errors and warnings.
> >>
> >> They were all removed, except one which is an #if 0 around the declaration
> >> of a gpio pin. This needs some more investigation and I prefer to let it
> >> here. This is not some dead code.
> > []
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> > []
> >> @@ -674,17 +680,17 @@ static void __init mini2440_init(void)
> >>              mini2440_fb_info.displays =
> >>                      &mini2440_lcd_cfg[features.lcd_index];
> >>
> >> -            printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: LCD");
> >> +            pr_info("MINI2440: LCD");
> >
> > OK
> >
> >>              for (li = 0; li < ARRAY_SIZE(mini2440_lcd_cfg); li++)
> >>                      if (li == features.lcd_index)
> >> -                            printk(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
> >> +                            pr_info(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
> >>                                      mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
> >>                                      mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);
> >
> > pr_cont
> >
> >>                      else
> >> -                            printk(" %d:%dx%d", li,
> >> +                            pr_info(" %d:%dx%d", li,
> >
> > pr_cont
> >
> >>                                      mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
> >>                                      mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);
> >> -            printk("\n");
> >> +            pr_info("\n");
> >
> > pr_cont
> >
> > So only the first printk should use pr_info().
> > The subsequent printk uses should use pr_cont()
>
> at this point, I don't know what to do.
>
> Should I resubmit the patches? Or is it in the hands of
> Krzysztof (krzk@...nel.org)? I would say a git rebase -i
> is enough to edit the patch and this rebase is obviously
> not to be done by me, but I don't know the process.

Can you send a incremental fix for this, restoring the original
continued printks?

Best regards,
Krzysztof