Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-108413-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: unwind: improve unwinders for noreturn case
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
References: <1709516385-7778-1-git-send-email-xiaojiangfeng@huawei.com>
 <1710901169-22763-1-git-send-email-xiaojiangfeng@huawei.com>
 <202403191945.661DBCE8@keescook>
 <fb8c6e8f-de47-8cbc-e30a-60961f5ce7ad@huawei.com>
 <ZfpZLJ3F3efXUwQf@casper.infradead.org>
CC: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	<arnd@arndb.de>, <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>, <haibo.li@mediatek.com>,
	<angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>, <amergnat@baylibre.com>,
	<akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	<douzhaolei@huawei.com>, <gustavoars@kernel.org>, <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
	<kepler.chenxin@huawei.com>, <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	<linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<nixiaoming@huawei.com>, <peterz@infradead.org>, <wangbing6@huawei.com>,
	<wangfangpeng1@huawei.com>, <jannh@google.com>, <David.Laight@aculab.com>
From: Jiangfeng Xiao <xiaojiangfeng@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <98468785-ed75-f812-7263-1adf677f00d2@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:46:31 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.7.1
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ZfpZLJ3F3efXUwQf@casper.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 2024/3/20 11:34, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 11:30:13AM +0800, Jiangfeng Xiao wrote:
>> The checkpatch.pl script reports the "WARNING: printk() should
>> include KERN_<LEVEL> facility level" warning.
>>
>> That's why I changed printk to pr_warn.
>> I should change printk to printk(KERN_DEFAULT).
> 
> No, you should ignore checkpatch.  For bonus points, figure out why you
> should ignore it specifically in this case.
> .
> 

Thank you. I think I understand.

The checkpatch.pl file is a false report
because the 'loglvl' already exists.

I'd better keep printk(" %s...", loglvl, ...) still.