At Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:02:04 +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 03:57:04PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 19:21 +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > as pr_* macros are more preffered over printk, so printk replaced > > > with corresponding pr_* macros. > > > > Are you simply running checkpatch on every file and decided to do > > something about it? :) > > > i am running checkpatch on the patch generated. if i am doing checkpatch > cleanups then that i do it only in the staging. > only exception : printk .. :) > > > I'll let Takashi decide whether to take this or not as I no longer care > > about this code, but IMHO this changes is completely pointless since you > > don't also clean up the code to have a common prefix with #define pr_fmt > > and then clean up the callers etc. > > > i mentioned in the comment that in a future patch we can have pr_fmt, > it was not done in this patch since the changes for this patch is > generated by a script and not manually. > if Takashi accepts this then the next patch will have pr_fmt.
If you're going to work on it, please give a patch series and let me merge once. There is no good merit to merge a half-baked piece by piece. Regarding the changes you've made: so far, I've merged two such patches just because it's a good exercise for newbies. You've played it and experienced it enough. So it's time to go up to a higher stage, more "real" fixes. For example, if you are still interested in printk stuff, try to change the calls to dev_err() and co. Of course, this needs more understanding of the code you'll handle, which object is passed for which messages. thanks, Takashi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
