On Sun, 2014-09-21 at 06:25 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > 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?
I don't know. Last I recall via searching emails, Alan Jenkins was going to do something with it. (I've added his old email to this reply, but I doubt still works) I remember checking whether or not the removing the return value reduced the code size on x86 (it did not), and forgot about it. I don't know if removing the printk return value reduces overall image size in any arch, so I didn't pursue it. -- 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/