Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:03:16 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Suggest pr_<level> over printk(KERN_<LEVEL> |
| |
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:01:44 -0400 "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 02:55:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > 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. > > Sure but if a particular kernel file or subsystem is _not_ using > pr_foo(), having a checkpatch which tries to force everyone to use > pr_foo() is going to be really annoying to me as a maintainer... >
Yes, that's what I fear. That's why I'm testing it...
| |