On 27 September 2016 at 17:43, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > "unify" might be better, but I agree. Either way there's no point in elaborating on the point me(Sean?) meant since it's just going to get shoot down like a dog ;-) Regards, Emil _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
