On Mon, 2017-11-27 at 09:52 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > 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? Because checkpatch cannot know if the printk is missing a KERN_CONT or another different KERN_<LEVEL>. -- 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
