2017-09-05 02:27:52

by Cheng Jian

Subject: [PATCH] arm64: Convert pr_warning to standard pr_warn

Convert pr_warning to standard pr_warn in arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c

Signed-off-by: Cheng Jian <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
index 9f7195a..efcaa05 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
@@ -972,7 +972,7 @@ void smp_send_stop(void)
udelay(1);

if (num_online_cpus() > 1)
- pr_warning("SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs %*pbl\n",
+ pr_warn("SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs %*pbl\n",
cpumask_pr_args(cpu_online_mask));
}

@@ -1009,7 +1009,7 @@ void crash_smp_send_stop(void)
udelay(1);

if (atomic_read(&waiting_for_crash_ipi) > 0)
- pr_warning("SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs %*pbl\n",
+ pr_warn("SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs %*pbl\n",
cpumask_pr_args(&mask));
}

--
1.8.3.1

2017-09-05 09:12:24

by Mark Rutland

Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Convert pr_warning to standard pr_warn

On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:28:38AM +0800, chengjian c00427203 wrote:
> Convert pr_warning to standard pr_warn in arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
>
> Signed-off-by: Cheng Jian <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Is this a step towards removing pr_warning entirely?

If so, can you please fix up all occurences in arm64? i.e.

[mark@leverpostej:~/src/linux]% git grep pr_warning linux-next/master:arch/arm64
linux-next/master:arch/arm64:include/asm/syscall.h: pr_warning("%s called with max args %d, handling only %d\n",
linux-next/master:arch/arm64:include/asm/syscall.h: pr_warning("%s called with max args %d, handling only %d\n",
linux-next/master:arch/arm64:kernel/hw_breakpoint.c: pr_warning("unknown slot type: %d\n", type);
linux-next/master:arch/arm64:kernel/hw_breakpoint.c: pr_warning("attempt to read from unknown breakpoint register %d\n", n);
linux-next/master:arch/arm64:kernel/hw_breakpoint.c: pr_warning("attempt to write to unknown breakpoint register %d\n", n);
linux-next/master:arch/arm64:kernel/hw_breakpoint.c: pr_warning("invalid breakpoint privilege level %d\n", privilege);
linux-next/master:arch/arm64:kernel/smp.c: pr_warning("SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs %*pbl\n",
linux-next/master:arch/arm64:kernel/smp.c: pr_warning("SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs %*pbl\n",

Otherwise, I don't think it make sense to only fix some occurences.

Thanks,
Mark.

>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> index 9f7195a..efcaa05 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -972,7 +972,7 @@ void smp_send_stop(void)
> udelay(1);
>
> if (num_online_cpus() > 1)
> - pr_warning("SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs %*pbl\n",
> + pr_warn("SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs %*pbl\n",
> cpumask_pr_args(cpu_online_mask));
> }
>
> @@ -1009,7 +1009,7 @@ void crash_smp_send_stop(void)
> udelay(1);
>
> if (atomic_read(&waiting_for_crash_ipi) > 0)
> - pr_warning("SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs %*pbl\n",
> + pr_warn("SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs %*pbl\n",
> cpumask_pr_args(&mask));
> }
>
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

2017-09-05 09:22:51

by Cheng Jian

Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Convert pr_warning to standard pr_warn

Hi Mark,

OK, I will do it now



> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:28:38AM +0800, chengjian c00427203 wrote:
>> Convert pr_warning to standard pr_warn in arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Cheng Jian <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> Is this a step towards removing pr_warning entirely?
>
> If so, can you please fix up all occurences in arm64? i.e.
>
> [mark@leverpostej:~/src/linux]% git grep pr_warning linux-next/master:arch/arm64
> linux-next/master:arch/arm64:include/asm/syscall.h: pr_warning("%s called with max args %d, handling only %d\n",
> linux-next/master:arch/arm64:include/asm/syscall.h: pr_warning("%s called with max args %d, handling only %d\n",
> linux-next/master:arch/arm64:kernel/hw_breakpoint.c: pr_warning("unknown slot type: %d\n", type);
> linux-next/master:arch/arm64:kernel/hw_breakpoint.c: pr_warning("attempt to read from unknown breakpoint register %d\n", n);
> linux-next/master:arch/arm64:kernel/hw_breakpoint.c: pr_warning("attempt to write to unknown breakpoint register %d\n", n);
> linux-next/master:arch/arm64:kernel/hw_breakpoint.c: pr_warning("invalid breakpoint privilege level %d\n", privilege);
> linux-next/master:arch/arm64:kernel/smp.c: pr_warning("SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs %*pbl\n",
> linux-next/master:arch/arm64:kernel/smp.c: pr_warning("SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs %*pbl\n",
>
> Otherwise, I don't think it make sense to only fix some occurences.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
>> index 9f7195a..efcaa05 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
>> @@ -972,7 +972,7 @@ void smp_send_stop(void)
>> udelay(1);
>>
>> if (num_online_cpus() > 1)
>> - pr_warning("SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs %*pbl\n",
>> + pr_warn("SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs %*pbl\n",
>> cpumask_pr_args(cpu_online_mask));
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1009,7 +1009,7 @@ void crash_smp_send_stop(void)
>> udelay(1);
>>
>> if (atomic_read(&waiting_for_crash_ipi) > 0)
>> - pr_warning("SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs %*pbl\n",
>> + pr_warn("SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs %*pbl\n",
>> cpumask_pr_args(&mask));
>> }
>>
>> --
>> 1.8.3.1
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> .
>

2017-09-05 18:39:43

by Joe Perches

Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Convert pr_warning to standard pr_warn

On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 10:10 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:28:38AM +0800, chengjian c00427203 wrote:
> > Convert pr_warning to standard pr_warn in arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Cheng Jian <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Is this a step towards removing pr_warning entirely?
>
> If so, can you please fix up all occurences in arm64? i.e.

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9578907/

2017-09-06 09:22:53

by Mark Rutland

Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Convert pr_warning to standard pr_warn

On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:38:23AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 10:10 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:28:38AM +0800, chengjian c00427203 wrote:
> > > Convert pr_warning to standard pr_warn in arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Cheng Jian <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > Is this a step towards removing pr_warning entirely?
> >
> > If so, can you please fix up all occurences in arm64? i.e.
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9578907/
>

Ah, I thought I'd seen this before. :)

Catalin, Will, are you happy with Joe's patch?

Thanks,
Mark.

2017-09-06 14:19:22

by Catalin Marinas

Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Convert pr_warning to standard pr_warn

On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:21:26AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:38:23AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 10:10 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:28:38AM +0800, chengjian c00427203 wrote:
> > > > Convert pr_warning to standard pr_warn in arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Cheng Jian <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 4 ++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Is this a step towards removing pr_warning entirely?
> > >
> > > If so, can you please fix up all occurences in arm64? i.e.
> >
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9578907/
>
> Ah, I thought I'd seen this before. :)
>
> Catalin, Will, are you happy with Joe's patch?

Yes, though I thought they'd go in via other tree (e.g.
kernel-janitors).

--
Catalin