lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] net: netfilter: Replace printk() with appropriate pr_*() macro
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 03:56:15AM +0530, Arushi Singhal wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:17 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:52:41PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 01:11 +0530, Arushi Singhal wrote:
> > > > Using pr_<loglevel>() is more concise than
> > > > printk(KERN_<LOGLEVEL>).
> > > > Replace printks having a log level with the appropriate
> > > > pr_*() macros.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Arushi Singhal <arushisinghal19971997@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > changes in v2
> > > > *in v1 printk() were replaced with netdev_*()
> > >
> > > > net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_acct.c | 2 +-
> > > > net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_ecache.c | 2 +-
> > > > net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_timestamp.c | 2 +-
> > > > net/netfilter/nf_nat_core.c | 2 +-
> > > > net/netfilter/nfnetlink_queue.c | 4 ++--
> > > > 5 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > None of these files have a #define for pr_fmt so this
> > > should be OK.
> >
> > I think Arushi could add pr_fmt in the same go, so we skip another
> > follow up patch for this. @Arushi: I suggested this in my previous
> > email, please have a look.
> >
> > Hello Pablo
>
> Should I send two patches, one with the conversion of printk() to pr_() and
> another for defining pr_fmt().
>
> Or
>
> only one patch with all the changes?

I think adding pr_fmt and use pr_() belongs to the same logical
change, so one patch for this is fine.

Thanks Arushi.

P.S: Please, just send your patch netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org
next time, no need to Cc every list. Thanks!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-11 23:29    [W:0.051 / U:0.432 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site