From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750874Ab0JTEHp (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:07:45 -0400 Received: from mail.perches.com ([173.55.12.10]:3133 "EHLO mail.perches.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750707Ab0JTEHo (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:07:44 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/hwmon: Use pr_fmt and pr_ From: Joe Perches To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Jean Delvare , Hans de Goede , Alistair John Strachan , Henrik Rydberg , "Mark M. Hoffman" , Luca Tettamanti , Fenghua Yu , Juerg Haefliger , Eric Piel , Jim Cromie , Roger Lucas , "lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org" , LKML In-Reply-To: <20101020035346.GA20178@ericsson.com> References: <1287530020.10409.594.camel@Joe-Laptop> <20101020032938.GA20095@ericsson.com> <1287545658.10409.606.camel@Joe-Laptop> <20101020035346.GA20178@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:07:42 -0700 Message-ID: <1287547662.10409.618.camel@Joe-Laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 20:53 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:34:18PM -0400, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 20:29 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > There are several lines longer than 80 characters. > > > Does this rule no longer apply ? > > 80 columns isn't checked for printk format strings. > Interesting. > > A kernel general preference may be to keep formats as > > a single string without line breaks so that grep works > > better. > > > Oddly enough, there are only four checkpatch warnings about long lines, > > > even though there are many more. > > The version I use doesn't show any warnings. > checkpatch.pl from both v2.6.36-rc7 and v2.6.36-rc6 do report warnings. > Looks like those versions flag long lines for pr_warn. Is your version > older or newer ? Newer. It adds pr_warn to the exempted list, not just pr_warning. > Anyway, would it be possible to split the patch into one patch per file ? Oh sure. It's trivial to do that. > I don't know how Jean thinks about it, but in my opinion it would be cleaner, > permit revert on a single patch/file instead of having to revert the entire series, > it would simplify review, and it would make it much easier to cherry-pick > pieces into other releases if needed. Jean, do you have a preference? I'll resubmit if you want it separated.