Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:55:17 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Suggest pr_<level> over printk(KERN_<LEVEL> |
| |
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:05:14 -0400 "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:23:03PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > Suggest the shorter pr_<level> instead of printk(KERN_<LEVEL>. > > > > Prefer to use pr_<level> over bare printks. > > Prefer to use pr_warn over pr_warning. > > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> > > Is this even worth a warning? I don't think so....
mm... probably. It's not a thing I ever bother mentioning in review, but I guess pr_foo() is a bit denser, and doing the same thing in two different ways is always an irritant.
I'll put the patch in my tree for a while and see how irritating I find it ;)
| |