On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 19:26 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 04:00:23PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> > index 208ecf6..f569cff 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> > @@ -693,8 +693,8 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > if (perf->control_register.space_id == ACPI_ADR_SPACE_FIXED_HARDWARE &&
> > policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency > 20 * 1000) {
> > policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = 20 * 1000;
> > - printk_once(KERN_INFO "Capping off P-state tranision"
> > - " latency at 20 uS\n");
> > + DO_ONCE(printk(KERN_INFO
> > + "P-state transition latency capped at 20 uS\n"));
>
> ewww. This looks pretty ugly to me. Anyone else?
What look ugly?
The macro use or the newline between KERN_INFO and "P-"
or the reformatting of the quoted string?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
