Re: [PATCH 2/8] ACPI, CPER: Update cper info

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Tue, 2013-10-15 at 22:46 -0400, Chen Gong wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 06:57:18PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 18:57:18 -0700
> > From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> > To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> > Cc: "Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@linux.intel.com>, tony.luck@intel.com,
> >  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] ACPI, CPER: Update cper info
> > X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4-0ubuntu1 
> > 
> > On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 17:47 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:06:30AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > > > -	printk("%s""APEI generic hardware error status\n", pfx);
> > > > > +	printk("%s""Generic Hardware Error Status\n", pfx);
> > > > 
> > > > Btw, what's the story with printk not using KERN_x levels in this file?
> > > > Why are we falling back to default printk levels for all printks here
> > > > and shouldn't we rather prioritize them by urgency into, say, KERN_ERR,
> > > > KERN_INFO, etc?
> > > 
> > > Ignore that - checkpatch complained about it but I kinda missed that
> > > we're handing down the prefix.
> > 
> > I think it'd be better to rename pfx to level
> > as that's what printk.h calls them.
> > 
> No. pfx includes log level and prefix string both.

Perhaps it'd be better to separate them.

I haven't looked too hard, but is apei_status_print
the only place it's used with more than KERN_<LEVEL>?