On 12/03/2015 03:03 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > 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 > I don't see this in the tree. Also maybe we should just convert no_printk() to do what your 'eliminated_printk()'. So we can convert all users with this change? Thanks, -Jason -- 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
