Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 31 May 2013 09:58:45 +0200 | From | Takashi Iwai <> | Subject | Re: [alsa-devel] Improving or replacing snd_printk() |
| |
At Fri, 31 May 2013 00:38:01 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 09:35 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > At Fri, 31 May 2013 00:30:09 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 09:23 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > At Fri, 31 May 2013 00:06:07 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 08:37 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > I think most of snd_printd() and snd_printdd() can be kept as is. > > > > > > These are just debug messages, after all. > > > > > Some of those are emitted at levels other than KERN_DEBUG. > > > > > I think that odd. > > > > Yeah, they aren't good, but it's a different topic. > > > > > > Not really, I think it's systemic and fallout from > > > accretive implementation rather than design. > > > > Maybe. > > > > But you shouldn't mix up with the fix for the missing verbosity and > > the fix for wrong KERN_ prefix, at least, in the patch level. They > > need to be fixed individually. > > I think that's best too. > > I don't see the complexity/hell in adding functions > for specific types of struct * to reduce the complexity > of the code though. Centralizing those indirections > into functions also generally reduces overall code size.
I don't mind to add the struct pointer to new snd_*() -- if we really introduce them. The bigger question is whether we really need to introduce such, and if yes, what variants. And for that, I don't think we need to add many functions. Maybe snd_card_<level>() would be good. But others don't seem to make sense to me (remember that I suggest dropping CONFIG_SND_VERBOSE_PRINTK).
Takashi
| |