I'm digging through older email, and notice you dropped this patch from your last series. It is a rather trivial patch, and I don't really care if it gets applied or not. But was there a reason to drop it? Or do you not care either?
-- Steve On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:22:53 +0100 Petr Mladek <[email protected]> wrote: > The colon at the end of the printk message suggests that it should get printed > before the details printed by ftrace_bug(). > > When touching the line, let's use the preferred pr_warn() macro as suggested > by checkpatch.pl. > > Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek <[email protected]> > --- > arch/x86/kernel/ftrace.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/ftrace.c b/arch/x86/kernel/ftrace.c > index 525a9f954c8b..ad7c38f5206b 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/ftrace.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/ftrace.c > @@ -622,8 +622,8 @@ void ftrace_replace_code(int enable) > return; > > remove_breakpoints: > + pr_warn("Failed on %s (%d):\n", report, count); > ftrace_bug(ret, rec ? rec->ip : 0); > - printk(KERN_WARNING "Failed on %s (%d):\n", report, count); > for_ftrace_rec_iter(iter) { > int err; > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
