On Tue, 2 October 2007 07:18:52 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > ah, this is even nicer than the raw_printk() thing i suggested, and it > also nicely documents the intention of the author. Patch attached below.
KERN_CONT was brought up in the linux-tiny discussion. Not sure if you want to get involved in that, but there may be value in adding one variant of KERN_CONT per debug level: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/30/151 > And i'd like to stress the principle that is followed here: in this > particular case the checkpatch.pl warning is very useful, but still > there are false positives. Fortunately they are so rare that it's worth > annotating those few exceptions in the source. Note that the goal is > still to be able to achieve 100% warning-free source code. _That_ should > be the driving principle behind checkpatch.pl warnings. Thank you for working on this. I had nearly given up on checkpatch before. Jörn -- When people work hard for you for a pat on the back, you've got to give them that pat. -- Robert Heinlein - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
