On 23 February 2017 at 17:18, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 09:28 -0600, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > There are ~4300 uses of pr_warn and ~250 uses of the older >> > pr_warning in the kernel source tree. >> > >> > Make the use of pr_warn consistent across all kernel files. >> > >> > This excludes all files in tools/ as there is a separate >> > define pr_warning for that directory tree and pr_warn is >> > not used in tools/. >> > >> > Done with 'sed s/\bpr_warning\b/pr_warn/' and some emacsing. > [] >> Where's the removal of pr_warning so we don't have more sneak in? > > After all of these actually get applied, > and maybe a cycle or two later, one would > get sent. > By which point you'll get a few reincarnation of it. So you'll have to do the same exercise again :-( I guess the question is - are you expecting to get the series merged all together/via one tree ? If not, your plan is perfectly reasonable. Fwiw in the DRM subsystem, similar cleanups does purge the respective macros/other with the final commit. But there one can pull the lot in one go. Regards, Emil _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
