On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 14:32 -0500, Jason Baron wrote: > On 12/03/2015 01:52 PM, Aaron Conole wrote: > > I think that as a minimum, the following patch should be evaluted, > > but am unsure to whom I should submit it (after I test): [] > Agreed - the intention here is certainly to have no side effects. It > looks like 'no_printk()' is used in quite a few other places that would > benefit from this change. So we probably want a generic > 'really_no_printk()' macro. https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/17/231 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
