lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 30/32] tools lib bpf: Renaming pr_warning to pr_warn
From
Date

On 2019/9/23 21:35, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 01:03:06PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
>> On Mon 2019-09-23 10:20:39, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 02:07:21PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:06 AM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>> For kernel logging macro, pr_warning is completely removed and
>>>>> replaced by pr_warn, using pr_warn in tools lib bpf for symmetry
>>>>> to kernel logging macro, then we could drop pr_warning in the
>>>>> whole linux code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> tools/lib/bpf/btf.c | 56 +--
>>>>> tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c | 20 +-
>>>>> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 652 ++++++++++++++++----------------
>>>>> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h | 2 +-
>>>>> tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c | 4 +-
>>>>> 5 files changed, 363 insertions(+), 371 deletions(-)
>>>> Thanks! This will allow to get rid of tons warnings from checkpatch.pl.
>>>>
>>>> Alexei, Daniel, can we take this through bpf-next tree once it's open?
>>> I'd be fine with that, in fact, it probably should be in order to avoid
>>> merge conflicts since pr_warn{ing}() is used all over the place in libbpf.
>> The entire patchset modifies many files all over the tree.
>> This is from https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190920062544.180997-1-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com
>>
>> 120 files changed, 882 insertions(+), 927 deletions(-)
>>
>> Would it make sense to push everything at the end of the merge window
>> or for 5.4-rc2 after master settles down?
> If all over the tree it would probably make more sense for e.g. Andrew Morton to
> pick it up if there are no other objections, and try to merge it during mentioned
> time frame.

Hi Andrew,could you pick them up if no objections, and I could resend all with comment fixed

with better time frame(rc1 or rc2 ), is it OK?

Thanks.

>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>
> .
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-26 04:01    [W:0.086 / U:1.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site