From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com (mail-pa0-x22f.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 898E41A0003
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:32:17 +1000 (EST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id ey11so9422671pad.6
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:02:04 +0530
From: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sound: aoa: printk replacement
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
In-Reply-To: <1410357424.2761.5.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
 linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

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
>