On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 09:40:04AM +0200, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez wrote: > On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 10:27 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:25:00AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 08:56:36AM +0200, Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez wrote: > > > > As there is no pr_* function used here, pr_fmt is not needed. > > > > > > > > > > Nah. What about if we decide to add some? Also there are actually > > > a couple pr_err() calls in there already. > > > > Oops. Sorry my tree is old. We removed the two calls to pr_err(). > > Same mistake here. In greg's staging-next the pr_err calls are not > present so the patch is totally valid but in linus branch they are there > (this is the reason of my error). > > So, this patch is valid, unless we want the pr_fmt definition for the > future. However, I prefer to delete it. > Sure. I guess everything in staging/ipack/ uses dev_err() type print statements and that includes more information than the the pr_fmt() macro already. Acked-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
