From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759987Ab2CMWBu (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:01:50 -0400 Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:57781 "EHLO test.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756046Ab2CMWBt (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:01:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:01:44 -0400 From: "Ted Ts'o" To: Andrew Morton Cc: Joe Perches , Andy Whitcroft , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Suggest pr_ over printk(KERN_ Message-ID: <20120313220144.GD11969@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ted Ts'o , Andrew Morton , Joe Perches , Andy Whitcroft , LKML References: <20120302025554.GA13493@joana> <20120301.221643.881299898523907213.davem@davemloft.net> <20120301.222316.1877216960521396397.davem@davemloft.net> <20120301.222604.1508242694024394849.davem@davemloft.net> <1330661602.1939.13.camel@joe2Laptop> <1330666534.1939.19.camel@joe2Laptop> <1330667673.1939.22.camel@joe2Laptop> <1331619783.7100.8.camel@joe2Laptop> <20120313120514.GA17538@thunk.org> <20120313145517.f4fcae46.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120313145517.f4fcae46.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on test.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 02:55:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > mm... probably. It's not a thing I ever bother mentioning in review, > but I guess pr_foo() is a bit denser, and doing the same thing in two > different ways is always an irritant. Sure but if a particular kernel file or subsystem is _not_ using pr_foo(), having a checkpatch which tries to force everyone to use pr_foo() is going to be really annoying to me as a maintainer... - Ted