On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 03:56:15AM +0530, Arushi Singhal wrote: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:17 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > Hi Joe, > > > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:52:41PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 01:11 +0530, Arushi Singhal wrote: > > > > Using pr_<loglevel>() is more concise than > > > > printk(KERN_<LOGLEVEL>). > > > > Replace printks having a log level with the appropriate > > > > pr_*() macros. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Arushi Singhal <arushisinghal19971997@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > changes in v2 > > > > *in v1 printk() were replaced with netdev_*() > > > > > > > net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_acct.c | 2 +- > > > > net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_ecache.c | 2 +- > > > > net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_timestamp.c | 2 +- > > > > net/netfilter/nf_nat_core.c | 2 +- > > > > net/netfilter/nfnetlink_queue.c | 4 ++-- > > > > 5 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > None of these files have a #define for pr_fmt so this > > > should be OK. > > > > I think Arushi could add pr_fmt in the same go, so we skip another > > follow up patch for this. @Arushi: I suggested this in my previous > > email, please have a look. > > > > Hello Pablo > > Should I send two patches, one with the conversion of printk() to pr_() and > another for defining pr_fmt(). > > Or > > only one patch with all the changes? I think adding pr_fmt and use pr_() belongs to the same logical change, so one patch for this is fine. Thanks Arushi. P.S: Please, just send your patch netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx next time, no need to Cc every list. Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
