Re: [PATCH v2 31/33] tools lib bpf: Renaming pr_warning to pr_warn

[Petr Mladek]

On Thu 2019-10-17 21:24:19, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 11:18:48AM +0800, Kefeng Wang 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.
> > 
> > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx>
> > Cc: Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx>
> > Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx>
> > Cc: bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  tools/lib/bpf/btf.c             |  56 +--
> >  tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c        |  18 +-
> >  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c          | 679 ++++++++++++++++----------------
> >  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h |   8 +-
> >  tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c             |   4 +-
> >  5 files changed, 379 insertions(+), 386 deletions(-)
> 
> Nack.
> I prefer this type of renaming to go via bpf tree.
> It's not a kernel patch. It's touching user space library
> which is under heavy development.
> Doing any other way will cause a ton of conflicts.

Fair enough. I'll ignore this patch. Could I assume that it will
be taken via bpf tree, please?

I'll also postpone the patch that removes pr_warning() to avoid
synchronization problems. I'll push it later when changes in
bpf[*] subsystem are merged.

[*] I am going to check conflicts against 5.4-rc1. I'll probably
ask more subsystems to take their changes to avoid conflicts
and make it smooth.

Best Regards,
Petr