lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/32] Kill pr_warning in the whole linux code
From
Date


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.
>
> 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.

Thanks
Kefeng

>
> I am sorry for late reply. I have never pushed such a mass change.
> I hoped that anyone more experienced will provide some opinion ;-)
>
> Best Regards,
> Petr
>
> .
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-17 15:31    [W:0.100 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site