On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:15:53AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-09-19 at 13:21 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 02:01:29 -0700
> > Omar Sandoval <osan...@osandov.com> wrote:
> >
> > > printk returns an integer; there's no reason for printk_ratelimited to
> > > swallow
> > > it.
>
> Except for the lack of usefulness of the return value itself.
> See: https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/7/275
When printk()'s return value is changed to void, then yes, we should
clearly change this code to match that.
So, I have to ask... What happened to the patch later in that series
that was to remove the uses of the printk() return value?
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
