On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 14:49 +0200, Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 09:50:42AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > Use the much more common pr_warn instead of pr_warning > > with the goal of removing pr_warning eventually. > > While I agree that only one of pr_warn and pr_warning deserves to live > picking pr_warning introduces another logic inconsistency - for each > pr_<foo> function there is a KERN_<FOO> severity symbol. And that in > this case is named KERN_WARNING, there's no KERN_WARN. Yes, I know. It's a consistency thing that can really only be resolved one step at a time. Most everything else uses _warn (dev_warn, netdev_warn, etc...) so it'd be good to get pr_warn done too. cheers, Joe
