Alan Cox writes:
> > > Yes, but that may change (in theory, at least.) Consistency is a virtue.
> >
> > I'll do this cleanup if my KERN_INFO patches will be accepted, at least some
> > of them. So far only Richard Gooch replied...
>
> I ran some of them into 7ac1 but got rejects so I've dumped them out
> for now. They mostly look completely sensible
I'd prefer if tree maintainers (that means you, Alan:-) don't apply
devfs patches that didn't come from me. I've already posted a patch
which cleans up *all* the remaining printk()'s. In fact, it's a pair
of patches, one for 2.4.x and one for 2.5.x. That was yesterday. Today
I'm still seeing this thread being beaten to death.
Besides, this is hardly an urgent fix, so there's no great rush to
apply a random patch from someone else, even if I did sit on it for a
week or two. Applying random patches will just end up generating more
merge work for me down the track.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 21:01:21 EST