On Thu, 2020-08-20 at 21:57 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:39:19 +0800 > Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [] > > Some other approaches/ideas: > > 1. Filter all lkml messages that contain trace_printk. Already found > > 1 instance, and I can easily reply to those with a semi-canned answer, > > if I remember to check that filter regularly (not sustainable in the > > long run...). > > Added Joe Perches to the thread. > > We can update checkpatch.pl to complain about a trace_printk() that it > finds in the added code. Why? I don't see much value in a trace_printk checkpatch warning. tracing is still dependent on CONFIG_TRACING otherwise trace_printk is an if (0) ELI5 please. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
