Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm: Simplify logging macros, convert DRM_NOTE to DRM_NOTICE
From: Sean Paul
Date: Tue Sep 27 2016 - 13:21:49 EST
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 27 September 2016 at 17:43, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 17:36 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>> On 27 September 2016 at 17:04, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 11:58 -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
>>> > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > > > Use a bit more consistent style with kernel loglevels
>>> > > I'm not convinced this is worth doing if we're going to keep the
>>> > > WARN/WARNING discrepancy, and I don't think we should switch DRM_WARN
>>> > > to DRM_WARNING since it's so widely used.
>>> > There is no DRM_WARN inconsistency.
>>> DRM_WARN is to DRM_WARNING like DRM_INFO is to DRM_INFORMATION and
>>> DRM_NOTE is to DRM_NOTICE...
>> DRM_INFORMATION doesn't exist in the kernel tree.
>>> is what I'm thinking and seemingly so
>>> does Sean. Fwiw that part seem cosmetic/unrelated to the rest of the
>>> patch, so it might be worth keeping separate ?
>> To me, simplifying the macro means using the common kernel
>> macro forms.
> "unify" might be better, but I agree.
> Either way there's no point in elaborating on the point me(Sean?)
> meant since it's just going to get shoot down like a dog ;-)
Yeah, I can see both sides, and I suppose I don't really care either
way. Given that DRM_NOTE/NOTICE is only used 7 places (in one file), I
doubt there are going to be any strong feelings.