On Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 12:26 Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 19:20:03 +0000 > Wei Wang <w...@google.com> 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. The config is not something new and it is controlling pr_debug and pr_devel, so might not be too annoying, IMHO. But I agree this is not a problem from us but from abusers. Thanks! -Wei > Let's add it to checkpatch and see if that can draining the swamp of > abusers. > -- Steve