Re: [PATCH] drivers/hwmon: Use pr_fmt and pr_

Guenter Roeck
2010-10-20T18:36:43Z

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 02:02:42PM -0400, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 10:48 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > The modified define in kernel.org would only apply if pr_fmt isn't already defined,
> > so that argument is not really correct. The real difference would be that you could
> > then remove the individual pr_fmt defines from 211 files, and all users of pr_fmt
> > without module name (ie those hard to read) would be easier to read/identify.
>
> I think that's not a good idea for now,
> though I agree with the general concept.
>
> This is in kernel.h now.
>
> #ifndef pr_fmt
> #define pr_fmt(fmt) fmt
> #endif
>
> A lot of the pr_<level> calls already include
> some internal prefix.
>
> Try:
> $ grep -rP --include=*.[ch] -oh "\bpr_\w+\s*\(\s*\"\w+:" * | \
> cut -f2- -d"(" | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn
>
> You're suggesting modifying 100+ files to get the
> same output used now.
>
Yes, plus another 200+ files to remove the then-unnecessary existing pr_fmt defines.

> I think doing something like this after some more
> generally accepted agreement is reached on how best
> to do it would be better.
>
Sounds like the ~400 definitions of TRUE and FALSE in the code base I am working with here.

My take is that the time to reach such an agreement is now, to avoid cluttering more code
with pr_fmt defines. The longer we wait, the more difficult it will get to reach an agreement,
since more and more subsystems will be affected.

Personally, I think the pr_fmt cleanup should be more important than replacing printk
with pr_<level>. But I'll defer to Jean's judgement on this one, and follow his lead.

Guenter