[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190430141029.GK9224@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 17:10:29 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
Cc: "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@...ux.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lorenzo.pieralisi@....com,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
andrew@...id.au, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, sudeep.holla@....com,
liviu.dudau@....com, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, vz@...ia.com,
linux@...sktech.co.nz, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
khilman@...libre.com, macro@...ux-mips.org,
slemieux.tyco@...il.com, matthias.bgg@...il.com, jacmet@...site.dk,
linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/41] drivers: tty: serial: cpm_uart: fix logging calls
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 05:59:04PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 27/04/2019 à 14:52, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult a écrit :
> > Fix checkpatch warnings by using pr_err():
> >
> > WARNING: Prefer [subsystem eg: netdev]_err([subsystem]dev, ... then dev_err(dev, ... then pr_err(... to printk(KERN_ERR ...
> > #109: FILE: drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_cpm2.c:109:
> > + printk(KERN_ERR
> >
> > WARNING: Prefer [subsystem eg: netdev]_err([subsystem]dev, ... then dev_err(dev, ... then pr_err(... to printk(KERN_ERR ...
> > #128: FILE: drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_cpm2.c:128:
> > + printk(KERN_ERR
> >
> > WARNING: Prefer [subsystem eg: netdev]_err([subsystem]dev, ... then dev_err(dev, ... then pr_err(... to printk(KERN_ERR ...
> > + printk(KERN_ERR
> >
> > WARNING: Prefer [subsystem eg: netdev]_err([subsystem]dev, ... then dev_err(dev, ... then pr_err(... to printk(KERN_ERR ...
> > + printk(KERN_ERR
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt <info@...ux.net>
>
> Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
>
> But is that really worth doing those changes ?
>
> If we want to do something useful, wouldn't it make more sense to introduce
> the use of dev_err() in order to identify the faulting device in the message
> ?
+1 for switching to dev_*().
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists