lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: janitoring printk with no KERN_ constants, kill all defaults?
From
Date
On ven, 2004-10-15 at 17:46, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 05:44:59PM +0200, Daniele Pizzoni wrote:
>
> > I ask, what rationale there is behind checking all printks to include
> > the "appropriate" constant? Should then we make printk fail when called
> > without KERN_ constant? Or can I force with a sed script all defaulted
> > printk to KERN_WARNING?
>
> No. Consider this..
>
> printk (KERN_INFO "blah blah ");
> if (foo)
> printk ("%s", stringptr);
> else
> printk ("%d", number);
> printk ("\n");
>
> There's nothing wrong with any of those printk's, so you
> cannot do the checks you mention above.

Let me understand... You mean that we should check printk constants for
_consistency_ in their context (that is: for buggish printk code). So
printk without KERN_* constant are not an issue (and the janitors TODO
list entry is a bit puzzling)?

Thanks for helping
Daniele


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.077 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site