Re: staging: ks7010: Replace three printk() calls by pr_err()

[Joe Perches]

On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 21:30 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > 
> > I think pr_ is OK if reworking the code
> > to support dev_ is not easy.
> Thanks for this explanation. - It sounds more constructive than the previous short
> feedback "Not correct".

<frustration>
How do you need your food prepared?
Do others need to cut it for you to bite sized pieces?
</frustration>

You might have noticed I also wrote in the same reply:

"All of these pr_fmt uses are redundant as pr_err already does pr_fmt"

> > > Would you accept that another update will be appended to the discussed patch series?
> > No.  Patches should not knowingly introduce defects
> > that are corrected in follow-on patches.
> This view is fine in principle.

It is not just principle.
It is a fundamental for kernel patch submission.

> I am just curious on the preferred sequence to fix the affected implementation details.
> 
> 1. I imagine that my questionable update suggestion "[PATCH v2 08/10] staging: ks7010:
>    Replace three printk() calls by pr_err()" can be skipped and the remaining logging
>    calls will be improved somehow a bit later.
> 
> Or:
> 
> 2. Do you want a resend of this whole patch series?

I am not an upstream path.
Greg KH generally serves that function here.
My suggestion would be to resend the entire patchset as V(n+1).
> It might be that I can occasionally become picky to check if other contributors
> insist on the usage of a specific error message.

You can be prone to understatement.