On Tue, 2 October 2007 07:18:52 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
> 
> ah, this is even nicer than the raw_printk() thing i suggested, and it 
> also nicely documents the intention of the author. Patch attached below.

KERN_CONT was brought up in the linux-tiny discussion.  Not sure if you
want to get involved in that, but there may be value in adding one
variant of KERN_CONT per debug level:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/30/151

quoted text
> And i'd like to stress the principle that is followed here: in this 
> particular case the checkpatch.pl warning is very useful, but still 
> there are false positives. Fortunately they are so rare that it's worth 
> annotating those few exceptions in the source. Note that the goal is 
> still to be able to achieve 100% warning-free source code. _That_ should 
> be the driving principle behind checkpatch.pl warnings.

Thank you for working on this.  I had nearly given up on checkpatch
before.

Jörn

-- 
When people work hard for you for a pat on the back, you've got
to give them that pat.
-- Robert Heinlein
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/