Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268122AbUJOQRr (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:17:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268092AbUJOQRr (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:17:47 -0400 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.104]:9167 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268122AbUJOQRo (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:17:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:17:55 -0700 From: Nishanth Aravamudan To: Daniele Pizzoni Cc: lkml , kernel-janitors , pazke@orbita.don.sitek.net Subject: Re: [KJ] janitoring printk with no KERN_ constants, kill all defaults? Message-ID: <20041015161755.GB2134@us.ibm.com> References: <1097855099.3004.64.camel@pdp11.tsho.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1097855099.3004.64.camel@pdp11.tsho.org> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.9-rc4 (i686) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 881 Lines: 22 On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 05:44:59PM +0200, Daniele Pizzoni wrote: > I'm investigating this (from the kernel janitors TODO list): > 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 think the rationale is to compare the comments from linux/kernel.h for the KERN_* definitions to their usage in the code and make sure they correspond accordingly, e.g. KERN_EMERG is only used if the system is actually unusable. Hope that helps, Nish - 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/