[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <59d1ef8f-4fb0-9af2-f761-b52559c8a699@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 20:52:38 +0200
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: check for missing \n at the end of logging
message
Le 09/04/2020 à 19:50, Joe Perches a écrit :
> On Thu, 2020-04-09 at 19:34 +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>> Le 09/04/2020 à 17:29, Joe Perches a écrit :
> []
>>> lib/percpu-refcount.c:#define pr_fmt(fmt) "%s: " fmt "\n", __func__
>> In this file, there are some WARN_ON.
>> Are these log functions also influenced by pr_fmt?
> No.
Ok, thx.
>
>>> drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h:#define pr_fmt(fmt) "bcache: %s() " fmt "\n", __func__
>>> drivers/md/bcache/bset.c:#define pr_fmt(fmt) "bcache: %s() " fmt "\n", __func__
>>> tools/usb/usbip/libsrc/usbip_common.h:#define pr_fmt(fmt) "%s: %s: " fmt "\n", PROGNAME
>> Tricky because all files that include it have to be checked.
>> I won't touch these ones.
> What a pity I do not know the French equivalent
> for the children's taunt of "chicken!"...
I don't know why the french one is wet, but the translation would be
"poule mouillée".
In fact, I don't really see the need to modify many files just for some
kind of style.
(same reason why I think that checkpatch is a better place for a test
than submitting hundreds of patches based on coccinelle)
From your point of view, does auditing and fixing these missing \n make
sense?
Wouldn't it just be a lot of noise for a small benefit?
CJ
Powered by blists - more mailing lists