Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:20:23 +0200 | From | FD Cami <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] extX: convert prink(KERN_WARNING) to extX_warning() |
| |
Hi,
(Eric and Randy added as CC to keep track of this)
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:31:07 -0600 Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2008 20:18 +0200, FD Cami wrote: > > This patch takes a shot at replacing the direct use of printk(KERN_WARNING) > > in extX by extX_warning. We now get the device number in the warning message : > > "EXT3-fs warning (device hda1): ext3_setup_super: maximal mount count reached, running e2fsck is recommended" > > It also adds the device information on a pair of printk(KERN_ERR) (this was > > first suggested by Kasper two weeks ago). > > The one issue is that KERN_ERR != KERN_WARNING, so these errors might > not be visible on the console, or may not be saved to the syslog.
Hmmm, I did not replace any KERN_ERR by ext3_warning / KERN_WARNING, but made those KERN_ERR calls more verbose. Does that change anything ?
For the record, I wanted to replace KERN_ERR calls by calls to a wrapper much like ext3_warning (but obviously calling KERN_ERR), later on.
> The other minor difference is that the function name is also printed, and > this makes the error message very long.
Ack, not pretty. Will fix that in next version.
> One suggestion is to create a separate macro that passes the KERN_* > flag and __func__ to ext3_console_msg(), and call that from > ext3_warning() and a new ext3_start_error() function. I always found > it annoying to have to specify __func__ as a parameter for every call.
OK, will do. Thanks for the suggestion.
> > ext3_warning(sb, __func__, > > - "updating to rev %d because of new feature flag, " > > - "running e2fsck is recommended", > > - EXT3_DYNAMIC_REV); > > + "updating to rev %d because of new feature flag, " > > + "running e2fsck is recommended", > > + EXT3_DYNAMIC_REV); > > Please don't change all of the indenting. The old indending is proper > linux coding style (aligned with previous '('), the new one is not.
Then this (old) coding style is not consistent within super.c , and not consistent with the example given in Documentation/CodingStyle either. I will "fix" the indentation in a separate patch for the whole file, to be merged or not.
> Note that you need to split up the patches for ext2, ext3, ext4 into > separate emails. I'd suggest just sending one of them until we agree > on what is right, then submitting the rest afterward.
OK. I did ext3/ext4 at once because of what Andrew replied to Kasper : "We like to keep ext3 and ext4 in sync as much as poss, please." http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/9/79 But I can do ext3 first and then back / forward port to ext2 and ext4 as well, as you suggest.
Thank you very much for replying.
Best,
Francois
| |