Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:06:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:06:26 -0400 Received: from ip68-9-71-221.ri.ri.cox.net ([68.9.71.221]:17509 "EHLO mail.blue-labs.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:06:26 -0400 Message-ID: <3D056912.60104@blue-labs.org> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:05:54 -0400 From: David Ford User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0+) Gecko/20020501 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thunder from the hill CC: Jacob Luna Lundberg , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: 2.4.19-pre10-ac2, compile warnings/failures In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bmilter: Processing completed, Bmilter version 0.1.0 build 565; timestamp 2002-06-10 23:05:41, message serial number 6060 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org My choice was to drop the \n, I don't like very short statements spread over multiple lines especially if I'm grepping for things. That's why I chose not to include a \n. -d Thunder from the hill wrote: >Hi, > >On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Jacob Luna Lundberg wrote: > > >>On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Thunder from the hill wrote: >> >> >>>- printk(KERN_WARNING "i2o: Could not quiesce %s." " >>>- Verify setup on next system power up.\n", c->name); >>>+ printk(KERN_WARNING "i2o: Could not quiesce %s." >>>+ "Verify setup on next system power up.\n", >>>+ c->name); >>> >>> >>Don't we lose a \n if you do that? Speaking of, is "\n" better, or " " >>I wonder... ;) >> >> > >You're right, here comes the accurate version: > > > - 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/