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? Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
