On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 10:40 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (08/29/17 22:24), Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > In 4.13-rc, printk("foo"); printk("bar"); seems to produce
> > > > foo\nbar. That's... quite surprising/unwelcome. What is going on
> > > > there? Are timestamps responsible?
[]
> > You are welcome not add checkpatch rules to prevent such code from being
> > merged...Pavel, what does this mean? > well... just a note, I personally developed a new habit - use > pr_err/pr_cont/etc macros instead of explicit printk(KERN_FOO "..."). > may be this can work for you. and we _probably_ need to advertise > pr_foo() more. As well as convert the macros to functions to save some .text too.
