On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 13:59 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 15:56 +0000, James Bottomley wrote: > > What exactly is the point of a mechanical conversion from > > printk(KERN_ ...) to pr_...? > > > > I can see the value of the pr_ macros from new code in that the > > temptation to put a comma after KERN_.. for some people is irresistible > > so it's an interface that's very easy to misuse, but given that we have > > correct uses, why convert them? > > Enables easier conversion to dev_<foo> macros Don't buy this ... this should just be done directly to avoid code churn. > Allows easier prefixing via pr_fmt Buy this, but you need to say what you're proposing for pr_fmt in IDE for this to make sense. > Puts back together unnecessarily chopped up format strings Staying out of this bikeshed colour discussion. > Standardization is good We'd only be standardising if printk is deprecated, which I don't think it is. > Just for the hell of it Don't like this ... it's not good for the stability of the code base and it can cause problems with subsidiary committers by generating unnecessary patch rejections due to code churn. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
