On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 00:55 -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 05:07:30PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > Use a more current logging style. > Oh, just for yucks, I did a quick check: > % git grep printk | wc -l > 71266 > % git grep pr_ | wc -l > 29552 > (and there are no doubt some false positives when grepping for "pr_") As there are for printk. I use "\bpr_(emerg|crit|alert|err|notice|warn|warning|info|debug)\b" and "\bprintk\b" or -w I did write "more current" and not predominate as there are large blocks of historical crud. You might try the same test on current code in the last couple of years or so. pr_<foo> was introduced October 2007 by commit 1f7c8234c7a68 $ git log -p --since=2-years-ago | \ grep -P "^\+.*\bpr_(emerg|crit|alert|err|notice|warn|warning|info|debug)\b" | \ wc -l 22704 $ git log -p --since=2-years-ago | \ grep -P "^\+.*\bprintk\b" | \ wc -l 24899 A lot of that was original submissions of older out-of-tree drivers with printk that were later converted to pr_<level> or dev_<level>, etc. In an aside: Gads, I need a faster netbook, that took 10's of minutes to produce... Any suggestions? cheers, Joe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
