On Tue, 2 October 2007 07:18:52 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> ah, this is even nicer than the raw_printk() thing i suggested, and it
> also nicely documents the intention of the author. Patch attached below.
KERN_CONT was brought up in the linux-tiny discussion. Not sure if you
want to get involved in that, but there may be value in adding one
variant of KERN_CONT per debug level:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/30/151
> And i'd like to stress the principle that is followed here: in this
> particular case the checkpatch.pl warning is very useful, but still
> there are false positives. Fortunately they are so rare that it's worth
> annotating those few exceptions in the source. Note that the goal is
> still to be able to achieve 100% warning-free source code. _That_ should
> be the driving principle behind checkpatch.pl warnings.
Thank you for working on this. I had nearly given up on checkpatch
before.
Jörn
--
When people work hard for you for a pat on the back, you've got
to give them that pat.
-- Robert Heinlein
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
