Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On 12/15/2016 07:50 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: basically I'm talking about a bunch of 80-cols fixups. Please don't. Nobody uses a vt100 terminal any more. The 80-column wrapping is excessive, and

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On 12/15/2016 07:50 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: basically I'm talking about a bunch of 80-cols fixups. Please don't. Nobody uses a vt100 terminal any more. The 80-column wrapping is excessive, and makes things like "grep" not work as

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 21:00 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Joe Perches writes: > > > grep 2.5.4 was the last version that supported the -P option to > > grep through for multiple lines. > > Does anybody know why it was dropped? perl compatible regexes in grep have always been

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 21:00 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Joe Perches writes: > > > grep 2.5.4 was the last version that supported the -P option to > > grep through for multiple lines. > > Does anybody know why it was dropped? perl compatible regexes in grep have always been "experimental"

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

Joe Perches writes: > grep 2.5.4 was the last version that supported the -P option to > grep through for multiple lines. Does anybody know why it was dropped?

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

Joe Perches writes: > grep 2.5.4 was the last version that supported the -P option to > grep through for multiple lines. Does anybody know why it was dropped?

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 18:10 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > > In fact, I thought we already upped the check-patch limit to 100? > > > > Nope, CodingStyle neither. > > > > Last time I tried was awhile ago. > > Ok,

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 18:10 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > > In fact, I thought we already upped the check-patch limit to 100? > > > > Nope, CodingStyle neither. > > > > Last time I tried was awhile ago. > > Ok, it must have been

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Joe Perches wrote: >> >> In fact, I thought we already upped the check-patch limit to 100? > > Nope, CodingStyle neither. > > Last time I tried was awhile ago. Ok, it must have been just talked about, and with the exceptions for strings etc I

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Joe Perches wrote: >> >> In fact, I thought we already upped the check-patch limit to 100? > > Nope, CodingStyle neither. > > Last time I tried was awhile ago. Ok, it must have been just talked about, and with the exceptions for strings etc I may not have seen as

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On (12/15/16 17:50), Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky > wrote: > > > > basically I'm talking about a bunch of 80-cols fixups. > > Please don't. I was really going to ask "do we still follow the 80 cols rule?" as the

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On (12/15/16 17:50), Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky > wrote: > > > > basically I'm talking about a bunch of 80-cols fixups. > > Please don't. I was really going to ask "do we still follow the 80 cols rule?" as the first line in that email, but then I

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 17:50 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky > wrote: > > > > basically I'm talking about a bunch of 80-cols fixups. > > Please don't. > > Nobody uses a vt100 terminal any more. The 80-column

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 17:50 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky > wrote: > > > > basically I'm talking about a bunch of 80-cols fixups. > > Please don't. > > Nobody uses a vt100 terminal any more. The 80-column wrapping is > excessive, and makes

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > basically I'm talking about a bunch of 80-cols fixups. Please don't. Nobody uses a vt100 terminal any more. The 80-column wrapping is excessive, and makes things like "grep" not work as well. No,

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > basically I'm talking about a bunch of 80-cols fixups. Please don't. Nobody uses a vt100 terminal any more. The 80-column wrapping is excessive, and makes things like "grep" not work as well. No, we still don't want excessively

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On (12/15/16 17:39), Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 10:37 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (12/15/16 17:23), Petr Mladek wrote: > > > On Thu 2016-12-15 13:53:58, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > If CONFIG_PRINTK=n: > > > > > > > > kernel/printk/printk.c:1893: warning:

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On (12/15/16 17:39), Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 10:37 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (12/15/16 17:23), Petr Mladek wrote: > > > On Thu 2016-12-15 13:53:58, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > If CONFIG_PRINTK=n: > > > > > > > > kernel/printk/printk.c:1893: warning:

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On (12/15/16 17:23), Petr Mladek wrote: > On Thu 2016-12-15 13:53:58, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > If CONFIG_PRINTK=n: > > > > kernel/printk/printk.c:1893: warning: ‘cont’ defined but not used > > > > Note that there are actually two different struct cont definitions and > > objects: the

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On (12/15/16 17:23), Petr Mladek wrote: > On Thu 2016-12-15 13:53:58, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > If CONFIG_PRINTK=n: > > > > kernel/printk/printk.c:1893: warning: ‘cont’ defined but not used > > > > Note that there are actually two different struct cont definitions and > > objects: the

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 10:37 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (12/15/16 17:23), Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Thu 2016-12-15 13:53:58, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > If CONFIG_PRINTK=n: > > > > > > kernel/printk/printk.c:1893: warning: ‘cont’ defined but not used > > > > > > Note that there

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 10:37 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (12/15/16 17:23), Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Thu 2016-12-15 13:53:58, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > If CONFIG_PRINTK=n: > > > > > > kernel/printk/printk.c:1893: warning: ‘cont’ defined but not used > > > > > > Note that there

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On Thu 2016-12-15 13:53:58, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > If CONFIG_PRINTK=n: > > kernel/printk/printk.c:1893: warning: ‘cont’ defined but not used > > Note that there are actually two different struct cont definitions and > objects: the first one is used if CONFIG_PRINTK=y, the second one

Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On Thu 2016-12-15 13:53:58, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > If CONFIG_PRINTK=n: > > kernel/printk/printk.c:1893: warning: ‘cont’ defined but not used > > Note that there are actually two different struct cont definitions and > objects: the first one is used if CONFIG_PRINTK=y, the second one

[PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

If CONFIG_PRINTK=n: kernel/printk/printk.c:1893: warning: ‘cont’ defined but not used Note that there are actually two different struct cont definitions and objects: the first one is used if CONFIG_PRINTK=y, the second one became unused by removing console_cont_flush(). Fixes:

[PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

If CONFIG_PRINTK=n: kernel/printk/printk.c:1893: warning: ‘cont’ defined but not used Note that there are actually two different struct cont definitions and objects: the first one is used if CONFIG_PRINTK=y, the second one became unused by removing console_cont_flush(). Fixes: