Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] m68k/irq: don't use pr_crit in an header | | From | Joe Perches <> | | Date | Sun, 18 Dec 2011 09:06:47 -0800 |
| |
On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 11:42 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 11:32:21AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > 2011/12/17 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>: > > > Using pr_crit in an header results in funny messages. Consider > > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "mydriver: " fmt > > > #include <linux/hardirq.h> > > > which makes the message from ack_bad_irq > > > mydriver: unexpected IRQ trap... > > > so better use plain printk with KERN_CRIT directly.
Why or when is that inappropriate?
> I only wondered if it is also desirable to > have messages in headers modified depending on the module the header is > included in. [] > > Nack. Nowadays pr_crit(...) is recommended over "printk(KERN_CRIT ...)". > I know that, I just wonder if the proponents of this recommendation are > aware of the issue when using pr_* in headers. Joe?
I believe it to be a feature rather than a defect.
For instance: commit 256ee435b9a9ee9cca69602fe8046b27ca99fbee
netdevice: Convert printk to pr_info in netif_tx_stop_queue
This allows any caller to be prefaced by any specific pr_fmt to better identify which device driver is using this function inappropriately.
cheers, Joe
-- 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/
|  |