Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Return a value from printk_ratelimited

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2014-09-21 at 06:25 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:15:53AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-09-19 at 13:21 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 02:01:29 -0700
> > > Omar Sandoval <osandov@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > printk returns an integer; there's no reason for printk_ratelimited to swallow
> > > > it.
> > 
> > Except for the lack of usefulness of the return value itself.
> > See: https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/7/275
> 
> When printk()'s return value is changed to void, then yes, we should
> clearly change this code to match that.
> 
> So, I have to ask...  What happened to the patch later in that series
> that was to remove the uses of the printk() return value?

I don't know.

Last I recall via searching emails, Alan Jenkins was going to do
something with it. (I've added his old email to this reply, but
I doubt still works)

I remember checking whether or not the removing the return value
reduced the code size on x86 (it did not), and forgot about it.

I don't know if removing the printk return value reduces overall
image size in any arch, so I didn't pursue it.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/