Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Oct 2019 15:52:29 +0200 | From | Petr Mladek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/32] Kill pr_warning in the whole linux code |
| |
On Thu 2019-10-17 21:29:55, Kefeng Wang wrote: > > > On 2019/10/17 21:05, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Tue 2019-10-08 14:39:32, Kefeng Wang wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> On 2019/10/2 16:55, Petr Mladek wrote: > >>> Linus, > >>> > >>> On Fri 2019-09-20 14:25:12, Kefeng Wang wrote: > >>>> There are pr_warning and pr_warng to show WARNING level message, > >>>> most of the code using pr_warn, number based on next-20190919, > >>>> > >>>> pr_warn: 5189 pr_warning: 546 (tools: 398, others: 148) > >>> > >>> The ratio is 10:1 in favor of pr_warn(). It would make sense > >>> to remove the pr_warning(). > >>> > >>> Would you accept pull request with these 32 simple patches > >>> for rc2, please? > >>> > >>> Alternative is to run a simple sed. But it is not trivial > >>> to fix indentation of the related lines. > >> > >> Kindly ping, should I respin patches with comments fixed? > >> Is the patchset acceptable, hope to be clear that what to do next :) > > > > I am going to check how many conflicts appeared in linux-next. > > > > If there are only few then I'll take it via printk.git. This way > > we get proper indentation and other changes. > > There are some conflicts(not too much), and I have already rebased > on next-20191017 with comment fixed, added Reviewed-by/Acked-by. > I could resend them ASAP if necessary.
OK, resend them, please.
> > If there are too many conflicts then I'll ask Linus to do a mass > > change using a script. > > For tools parts(api/bpf/perf, patch [29-31]), it renames pr_warning > to pr_warn, and make manually changes in some place, simply 'sed' > maybe not enough.
Yup.
Best Regards, Petr
| |