From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:46:58 +0000 Subject: [KJ] Re: janitoring printk with no KERN_ constants, Message-Id: <20041015154658.GD23638@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============47552460359016191==" List-Id: References: <1097855099.3004.64.camel@pdp11.tsho.org> In-Reply-To: <1097855099.3004.64.camel@pdp11.tsho.org> To: Daniele Pizzoni Cc: lkml , kernel-janitors , pazke@orbita.don.sitek.net --===============47552460359016191== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 05:44:59PM +0200, Daniele Pizzoni wrote: > I ask, what rationale there is behind checking all printks to include > the "appropriate" constant? Should then we make printk fail when called > without KERN_ constant? Or can I force with a sed script all defaulted > printk to KERN_WARNING? No. Consider this.. printk (KERN_INFO "blah blah "); if (foo) printk ("%s", stringptr); else printk ("%d", number); printk ("\n"); There's nothing wrong with any of those printk's, so you cannot do the checks you mention above. Dave --===============47552460359016191== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors --===============47552460359016191==-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268043AbUJOPrc (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:47:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268052AbUJOPrc (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:47:32 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:37534 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268043AbUJOPrZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:47:25 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:46:58 -0400 From: Dave Jones To: Daniele Pizzoni Cc: lkml , kernel-janitors , pazke@orbita.don.sitek.net Subject: Re: janitoring printk with no KERN_ constants, kill all defaults? Message-ID: <20041015154658.GD23638@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Daniele Pizzoni , lkml , kernel-janitors , pazke@orbita.don.sitek.net References: <1097855099.3004.64.camel@pdp11.tsho.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1097855099.3004.64.camel@pdp11.tsho.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 05:44:59PM +0200, Daniele Pizzoni wrote: > I ask, what rationale there is behind checking all printks to include > the "appropriate" constant? Should then we make printk fail when called > without KERN_ constant? Or can I force with a sed script all defaulted > printk to KERN_WARNING? No. Consider this.. printk (KERN_INFO "blah blah "); if (foo) printk ("%s", stringptr); else printk ("%d", number); printk ("\n"); There's nothing wrong with any of those printk's, so you cannot do the checks you mention above. Dave