On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 17:41 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: > 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 :-( Maybe to one or two files. Not a big deal. > I guess the question is - are you expecting to get the series merged > all together/via one tree ? No. The only person that could do that effectively is Linus. > If not, your plan is perfectly reasonable. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
