From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] ACPI, CPER: Update cper info Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:47:59 +0200 Message-ID: <20131011154759.GJ5925@pd.tnic> References: <1381473166-29303-1-git-send-email-gong.chen@linux.intel.com> <1381473166-29303-3-git-send-email-gong.chen@linux.intel.com> <20131011090630.GB5925@pd.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131011090630.GB5925@pd.tnic> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Chen, Gong" Cc: tony.luck@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org 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. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --