On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:12:14AM -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
>
> On Feb 16, 2016, at 12:55 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2016-02-16 at 00:47 -0500, gr...@linuxhacker.ru wrote:
> >> From: Oleg Drokin <gr...@linuxhacker.ru>
> >>
> >> This pacifies checkpatch amongst other things, also is shorter to write
> >> and avoiding calls to printk_ratelimit() is also good.
> > []
> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-tracefile.c
> >> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-tracefile.c
> > []
> >> @@ -244,11 +244,11 @@ void cfs_print_to_console(struct ptldebug_header
> >> *hdr, int mask,
> >> }
> >>
> >> if ((mask & D_CONSOLE) != 0) {
> >> - printk("%s%s: %.*s", ptype, prefix, len, buf);
> >> + pr_err("%s%s: %.*s", ptype, prefix, len, buf);
> >> } else {
> >> - printk("%s%s: %d:%d:(%s:%d:%s()) %.*s", ptype, prefix,
> >> - hdr->ph_pid, hdr->ph_extern_pid, file, hdr->ph_line_num,
> >> - fn, len, buf);
> >> + pr_warn("%s%s: %d:%d:(%s:%d:%s()) %.*s", ptype, prefix,
> >> + hdr->ph_pid, hdr->ph_extern_pid, file, hdr->ph_line_num,
> >> + fn, len, buf);
> >> }
> >> }
> >
> > This breaks the currently correct output.
>
> Hm, you are right. Thanks!
> I guess this patch just needs some redoing.
>
> Greg, if you can skip this patch but still apply the rest of the series, that
> would be great.
> I just tested that the whole thing builds and runs fine with this patch
> omitted.
Ok, now skipped, thanks.
greg k-h
