From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>, Nguyen Anh Quynh <aquynh@gmail.com>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Kuniyasu Suzaki <k.suzaki@aist.go.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix calls to request_module()
References: <9cde8bff0812101935j5ef56140k67035d892a868738@mail.gmail.com>
	<20081211040118.GK28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
	<20081210201455.0c611484.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<20081211044901.GL28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
	<adatz9b2thy.fsf@cisco.com>
	<20081210214142.9e7b2298.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:25:01 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20081210214142.9e7b2298.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (Andrew
	Morton's message of "Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:41:42 -0800")
Message-ID: <adahc5a2t2q.fsf@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 646
Lines: 17

 > I wonder if we could add a printk_stfu() which isn't declared
 > attribute(printf) and which simply calls printk.  We might still get a
 > single warning at the interface point.

That would fix the class of warnings like

	printk(char_pointer_gcc_doesnt_know_is_safe);

but therre are alsofunctions like device_create() etc etc where someone
could easily and legitimately do the same thing.

 - R.
--
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/