On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-11-26 at 23:40 -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> > On 26/11/17 11:34 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > It would probably be better not to mention the KERN_CONT possibility at
> > > all.
> >
> > Oh? I don't disagree... but what are we supposed to do in these cases?
> > The way v2 of my patch works it just says that there is a missing new
> > line. But Joe calls that a false positive. So if we can't report that
> > it's missing a new line and we can't say it looks like it needs a
> > KERN_CONT, then what can we do? The case is obviously wrong in some way
> > or another so we probably shouldn't just ignore it.
I meant why not only suggest pr_cont?
julia
>
> checkpatch already reports printks without KERN_<level>
>
> # printk should use KERN_* levels
> if ($line =~ /\bprintk\s*\(\s*(?!KERN_[A-Z]+\b)/) {
> WARN("PRINTK_WITHOUT_KERN_LEVEL",
> "printk() should include KERN_<LEVEL> facility level\n" . $herecurr);
> }
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
