Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267943AbUJOOnc (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:43:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267953AbUJOOnc (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:43:32 -0400 Received: from vsmtp4alice-fr.tin.it ([212.216.176.150]:7415 "EHLO vsmtp4.tin.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267943AbUJOOnT (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:43:19 -0400 Subject: janitoring printk with no KERN_ constants, kill all defaults? From: Daniele Pizzoni To: lkml , kernel-janitors Cc: pazke@orbita.don.sitek.net Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1097855099.3004.64.camel@pdp11.tsho.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:44:59 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1207 Lines: 31 I'm investigating this (from the kernel janitors TODO list): ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Andrey Panin - check printk() calls (should include appropriate KERN_* constant). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ printk ends up using the default KERN_WARNING constant when no costant is explicitly specified; the default is changeable. So a printk with _no_ constant specified means "use the current default" and could be, maybe in some cases only, a developer choice. I ask, what rationale there is behind checking all printks to include the "appropriate" constant? Should then we make printk fail when called without KERN_ constant? Or can I force with a sed script all defaulted printk to KERN_WARNING? I'm looking for advice, or a pointer to an appropriate thread of the lkml archives. Thanks Daniele Pizzoni - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/