[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <576a57b4c134903e9889cb670ccbb08a47230b6c.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 14:40:40 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
apw@...onical.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: check for missing \n at the end of logging
message
On Thu, 2020-04-09 at 20:52 +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> 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?
Not all that much no. Even the existing conversions
of formats missing newlines isn't all that important.
It's only a consideration for relatively unmaintained
old drivers and arches that still use printk without a
KERN_<LEVEL> where a message might either be interleaved
with a pr_<level> style message without a terminating
newline or by old style messages that should actually
instead be coalesced because the printks don't have
any KERN_<LEVEL>.
> Wouldn't it just be a lot of noise for a small benefit?
Much of the noise has already been filtered out by patches
and the ambient noise is already at a relatively low
level.
Quiet is good though and I think the noise reduction
is useful and quite painless.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists