From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754890Ab0KIVIn (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2010 16:08:43 -0500 Received: from mail.perches.com ([173.55.12.10]:4786 "EHLO mail.perches.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754631Ab0KIVIm (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2010 16:08:42 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] include/linux/kernel.h: Move logging bits to include/linux/logging.h From: Joe Perches To: "Ted Ts'o" Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20101109210030.GI3099@thunk.org> References: <1289281110-8559-1-git-send-email-joe@perches.com> <1289328235.1823.108.camel@Joe-Laptop> <1289330276.1823.125.camel@Joe-Laptop> <20101109210030.GI3099@thunk.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:08:40 -0800 Message-ID: <1289336920.28590.44.camel@Joe-Laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 16:00 -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 11:17:56AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > Differences in logging.h to original kernel.h > > were done for cleanliness and checkpatch. > Yet another reason why I detest mindless use of checkpatch. If it makes you happier, I didn't use it here nor do I generally use checkpatch, (just ask Andrew Morton), I just wrote that more as a shorthand for kernel style conformance. > I **really** dislike patches that try to do any kind of > cleanup (checkpatch.pl or otherwise) at the same time as they move > code around. So fine, I'll do a minimal code movement only patch followed by a style cleansing patch. Anyone else have an opinion on using logging.h vs printk.h as an include name?