Re: [PATCH 30/32] tools lib bpf: Renaming pr_warning to pr_warn

[Petr Mladek]

On Mon 2019-09-23 10:20:39, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 02:07:21PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:06 AM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > For kernel logging macro, pr_warning is completely removed and
> > > replaced by pr_warn, using pr_warn in tools lib bpf for symmetry
> > > to kernel logging macro, then we could drop pr_warning in the
> > > whole linux code.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  tools/lib/bpf/btf.c             |  56 +--
> > >  tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c        |  20 +-
> > >  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c          | 652 ++++++++++++++++----------------
> > >  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h |   2 +-
> > >  tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c             |   4 +-
> > >  5 files changed, 363 insertions(+), 371 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Thanks! This will allow to get rid of tons warnings from checkpatch.pl.
> > 
> > Alexei, Daniel, can we take this through bpf-next tree once it's open?
> 
> I'd be fine with that, in fact, it probably should be in order to avoid
> merge conflicts since pr_warn{ing}() is used all over the place in libbpf.

The entire patchset modifies many files all over the tree.
This is from https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190920062544.180997-1-wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx

    120 files changed, 882 insertions(+), 927 deletions(-)

Would it make sense to push everything at the end of the merge window
or for 5.4-rc2 after master settles down?

Best Regards,
Petr