Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/35] treewide trivial patches converting pr_warning to pr_warn

From: Joe Perches <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 09:53:41 -0800

On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 17:41 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 23 February 2017 at 17:18, Joe Perches <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 09:28 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Joe Perches <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > > There are ~4300 uses of pr_warn and ~250 uses of the older
> > > > pr_warning in the kernel source tree.
> > > > 
> > > > Make the use of pr_warn consistent across all kernel files.
> > > > 
> > > > This excludes all files in tools/ as there is a separate
> > > > define pr_warning for that directory tree and pr_warn is
> > > > not used in tools/.
> > > > 
> > > > Done with 'sed s/\bpr_warning\b/pr_warn/' and some emacsing.
> > 
> > []
> > > Where's the removal of pr_warning so we don't have more sneak in?
> > 
> > After all of these actually get applied,
> > and maybe a cycle or two later, one would
> > get sent.
> > 
> 
> By which point you'll get a few reincarnation of it. So you'll have to
> do the same exercise again :-(

Maybe to one or two files.  Not a big deal.

> I guess the question is - are you expecting to get the series merged
> all together/via one tree ?

No.  The only person that could do that effectively is Linus.

> If not, your plan is perfectly reasonable.