From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 08:28:42 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: Add a warning for log messages that don't end in a new line Message-Id: <1511771322.32426.1.camel@perches.com> List-Id: References: <20171126054037.9743-1-logang@deltatee.com> <1511676085.20482.18.camel@perches.com> <5c0a2778-8e8f-9fbb-b13f-1d880acb949b@deltatee.com> <1511735382.20482.27.camel@perches.com> <355029d1-48f5-095e-0d99-bb726d2d56e5@deltatee.com> <86f3f594-79f7-c2ce-2cc6-f641bd6f55ae@deltatee.com> In-Reply-To: <86f3f594-79f7-c2ce-2cc6-f641bd6f55ae@deltatee.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Logan Gunthorpe , Julia Lawall Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft On Sun, 2017-11-26 at 23:40 -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > On 26/11/17 11:34 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: > > It would probably be better not to mention the KERN_CONT possibility at > > all. > > Oh? I don't disagree... but what are we supposed to do in these cases? > The way v2 of my patch works it just says that there is a missing new > line. But Joe calls that a false positive. So if we can't report that > it's missing a new line and we can't say it looks like it needs a > KERN_CONT, then what can we do? The case is obviously wrong in some way > or another so we probably shouldn't just ignore it. checkpatch already reports printks without KERN_ # printk should use KERN_* levels if ($line =~ /\bprintk\s*\(\s*(?!KERN_[A-Z]+\b)/) { WARN("PRINTK_WITHOUT_KERN_LEVEL", "printk() should include KERN_ facility level\n" . $herecurr); }