On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 19:20:03 +0000 Wei Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > checkpatch.pl sounds good. One thing to add is we have many off tree > patches with abuse trace_printk. Also as you mentioned, given this is > really not for use in production and we have been cleaning this our on our > side for years, could we consider to enforce this in kernel?
That nasty warning was suppose to be the enforcement. I would expect nobody would ship a kernel where it produced such a message on boot (or loading of a module). If they don't notice, then they are not testing their code. A lot of kernel developers use trace_printk() and I want to make it as easy to use as possible. I don't want to add a config to enable it, because that would be something that could be rather annoying. Let's add it to checkpatch and see if that can draining the swamp of abusers. -- Steve
