On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 03:57:04PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 19:21 +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > as pr_* macros are more preffered over printk, so printk replaced > > with corresponding pr_* macros. > > Are you simply running checkpatch on every file and decided to do > something about it? :) > i am running checkpatch on the patch generated. if i am doing checkpatch cleanups then that i do it only in the staging. only exception : printk .. :)
> I'll let Takashi decide whether to take this or not as I no longer care > about this code, but IMHO this changes is completely pointless since you > don't also clean up the code to have a common prefix with #define pr_fmt > and then clean up the callers etc. > i mentioned in the comment that in a future patch we can have pr_fmt, it was not done in this patch since the changes for this patch is generated by a script and not manually. if Takashi accepts this then the next patch will have pr_fmt. thanks sudip > There's a reason pr_* is preferred, but random code changes like this > aren't it, I think. > > johannes > _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
