lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/9] ext4: Use pr_fmt and pr_<level>
From
Date
On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 18:28 -0700, david@lang.hm wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:44:10AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> >> This stuff ain't whitespace.
> >>> I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. For ext4, as far as I am
> > concerned, changing printk(KERN_INFO, ...) to pr_info(...) is *purely*
> > a whitespace-level change.
> Joe, if everything did change, what difference would it make?

Hi David.

> just being a consistant style doesn't matter much,

Perhaps we disagree on the value of consistency.
I believe it's a small but measurable effect and it
can reduce overall ongoing defect rates.

Is it DoublePlus_important_? No, definitely not.

To me using pr_<level> is a bit like using const
or marking sections devinitconst.

It hardly matters, but it's good form and it can
free up some working memory in ram limited systems.

> but if there is some
> functionality that would be possible with pr_info(...) that would not be
> possible with printk(KERN_INFO, ...), there may be more reason to change.

Right now, it's just macros over printk so it's pretty
trivial. I do intend to convert pr_<level> macros to
functions eventually to reduce code size ~.5% overall.
That reduction does depend on quantity of CONFIG_<FOO>
options enabled of course. Enable everything, I think
it's ~.01%. I haven't done it in quite awhile though
so that's a guess.

It matters a tiny bit more for flash or ram limited
systems.

Some driver optimizations like the rtlwifi reduction
in -next commit 481b9606ec might have more of an
impact though for those systems.

So, it depends...

cheers, Joe



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-20 02:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site