On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:43:43 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:38:35PM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > But first of all, I really would like the pr_fmt issue do be sorted > > > out. I don't like the idea of having to redefine it in every driver, > > > when it seems easy to avoid that. Joe? > > > > Agreed, especially since it doesn't seem to be used in many of the drivers. > > As I understand it, it's used silently by all pr_*() calls. I don't really understand the resistance to add the module name to the default pr_fmt in kernel.h, and I really don't like the idea to spread pr_fmt defines throughout the code instead. Maybe I am missing something, but to me the result of this cleanup is less clean code than before. What is your take ? Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
