On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 17:36 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 27 September 2016 at 17:04, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 11:58 -0400, Sean Paul wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Use a bit more consistent style with kernel loglevels > > > I'm not convinced this is worth doing if we're going to keep the > > > WARN/WARNING discrepancy, and I don't think we should switch DRM_WARN > > > to DRM_WARNING since it's so widely used. > > There is no DRM_WARN inconsistency. > DRM_WARN is to DRM_WARNING like DRM_INFO is to DRM_INFORMATION and > DRM_NOTE is to DRM_NOTICE... DRM_INFORMATION doesn't exist in the kernel tree. > is what I'm thinking and seemingly so > does Sean. Fwiw that part seem cosmetic/unrelated to the rest of the > patch, so it might be worth keeping separate ? To me, simplifying the macro means using the common kernel macro forms. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
