On Mon, 2017-11-27 at 10:44 -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > On 27/11/17 10:42 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > > No double stardard. One correctly informs that a bare > > printk is not acceptable. > > The other correctly informs that a printk that isn't followed by a > pr_cont or KERN_CONT is not correct.
It may or not be correct. Without inter-function call code flow analysis, it's not possible to be correct. If you can get the false positive & false negative rate higher, I'll listen. I think the Coccinelle script has a better chance to be more correct. cheers, Joe
