On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 12:22 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Jiri Kosina <ji...@kernel.org> wrote: > > Colin Ian King (5): > > netfilter: Add missing \n to pr_err() message > > agp/intel: add missing \n to end of dev_emerg message > > lightnvm: add missing \n to end of dev_err message > > nvme: add missing \n to end of dev_warn message > > > We really shouldn't be needing these final '\n' characters any more, afaik. > > If the next printk isn't done by the same process, and doesn't have a > KERN_CONT, the printk machinery should add the newline on its own. > > I realize that people have been adding these '\n' characters for a > while, but is there actually any point to it? They make the code less > legible, imho. And we actually have a number of logging functions that > explicitly don't want the newline (eg ext4_warning/error()), so it's > actually more consistent to *not* have a newline than it is to have > one.
Not remotely true. It's _way_ more consistent to use a newline termination. Macros without the newline are _far_ less common than those with newlines. Any printk without a KERN_<level> prefix, and there are still many of those, can cause random interleaving. > And if those '\n' characters actually make a difference, that should > be noted. Because that would imply that the printk logic isn't working > right. Not at all. Until printk KERN_<level> uses are mandated, then these newlines are still useful.
