From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sound: aoa: printk replacement
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:02:04 +0530
Message-ID: <20140910143204.GA30695@sudip-PC>
References: <1410357107-29933-1-git-send-email-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
 <1410357424.2761.5.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org>
Received: from mail-pd0-f175.google.com (mail-pd0-f175.google.com
 [209.85.192.175])
 by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id D226E262606
 for <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:32:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f175.google.com with SMTP id z10so11223730pdj.6
 for <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1410357424.2761.5.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/options/alsa-devel>,
 <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel>,
 <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org
Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org

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.

thanks
sudip

> There's a reason pr_* is preferred, but random code changes like this
> aren't it, I think.
> 
> johannes
>