Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: check for missing \n at the end of logging message

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Thu, 2020-04-09 at 20:52 +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> In fact, I don't really see the need to modify many files just for some 
> kind of style.
> (same reason why I think that checkpatch is a better place for a test 
> than submitting hundreds of patches based on coccinelle)
> 
> From your point of view, does auditing and fixing these missing \n make 
> sense?

Not all that much no.  Even the existing conversions
of formats missing newlines isn't all that important.

It's only a consideration for relatively unmaintained
old drivers and arches that still use printk without a
KERN_<LEVEL> where a message might either be interleaved
with a pr_<level> style message without a terminating
newline or by old style messages that should actually
instead be coalesced because the printks don't have
any KERN_<LEVEL>.

> Wouldn't it just be a lot of noise for a small benefit?

Much of the noise has already been filtered out by patches
and the ambient noise is already at a relatively low
level.

Quiet is good though and I think the noise reduction
is useful and quite painless.