On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 ;-) Yeah, I can see both sides, and I suppose I don't really care either way. Given that DRM_NOTE/NOTICE is only used 7 places (in one file), I doubt there are going to be any strong feelings. Sean > > Regards, > Emil _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
