Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:26:00 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Cc:     andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, david@redhat.com,
        vbabka@suse.cz, cl@linux.com, linmiaohe@huawei.com,
        penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, pmladek@suse.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com, joe@perches.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mm, slub: don't combine pr_err with INFO
Message-ID: <20210208172600.GU308988@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20210208101439.55474-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com>
 <20210208101439.55474-3-laoar.shao@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210208101439.55474-3-laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 06:14:38PM +0800, Yafang Shao wrote:
> It is strange to combine "pr_err" with "INFO", so let's remove the
> prefix completely.

So is this the right thing to do?  Should it be pr_info() instead?
Many of these messages do not appear to be error messages, but
rather informational messages.