Re: [RFC] Remove most all #define pr_fmt(fmt) lines
From: Joe Perches
Date: Wed Mar 28 2012 - 12:22:44 EST
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 10:46 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:30:03AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 09:27 +0200, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
> > > Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > +regulator-y := core.o dummy.o fixed-helper.o
> > > > +regulator-objs := $(regulator-y)
> > > > -obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR) += core.o dummy.o fixed-helper.o
> > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR) += regulator.o
> > > > Any objections or other suggestions/improvements?
> This seems an incredibly obscure approach.
> > > Instead of doing a Makefile change that has no _obvious_ connection with
> > > printk, wouldn't it be better to just define pr_fmt with "regulator: "?
> This seems like a much better idea if we're going to do anything; it
> means that we don't end up embedding module names in things (which are
> after all a bit of an implementation detail) and get to pick the name so
> we can do something like get the prefix which is used for the symbols in
> the code even if things are split over multiple modules.
A negative is that requires #defines in multiple
source files or rearranging #includes to centralize
A negative of the Makefile approach is the name is
obscurely chosen. A positive is it's only chosen
> In the case above we don't support modular build in the first place.
Unrelated but is there any particular reason why
the regulator core code couldn't be build as a
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/