lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] UBI: Extend UBI layer debug/messaging capabilities - cosmetics
From
Date
On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 14:53 +0200, Tanya Brokhman wrote:
> On 11/10/2014 2:18 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 13:06 +0200, Tanya Brokhman wrote:
> >>
> >> /* Normal UBI messages */
> >> #define ubi_msg(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_notice("UBI-%d: %s:" fmt "\n", \
> >> - ubi->ubi_num, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >> + (ubi ? ubi->ubi_num : UBI_MAX_DEVICES), \
> >> + __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >> /* UBI warning messages */
> >> #define ubi_warn(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_warn("UBI-%d warning: %s: " fmt "\n", \
> >> - ubi->ubi_num, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >> + (ubi ? ubi->ubi_num : UBI_MAX_DEVICES), \
> >> + __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >> /* UBI error messages */
> >> #define ubi_err(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_err("UBI-%d error: %s: " fmt "\n", \
> >> - ubi->ubi_num, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >> + (ubi ? ubi->ubi_num : UBI_MAX_DEVICES), \
> >> + __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >
> > Why did you make these changes? It is preferable to not add another 'if'
> > statement to this macro to handle one or 2 cases - much bloat, little
> > gain.
> >
> > Could we please avoid this?
>
> I just wanted to be on the safe side and prevent this macro being called
> with ubi=NULL that may crash the system. If you still prefer the "if"
> removed will do.

On the other hand, these are macros, and this if gets duplicated in many
places and translate into few additional assembly instructions per
message.

> > The warning looks pretty poor, so I do not mind to remove it, but I
> > thought your patch is about adding a parameter, but you mix different
> > kinds of things there. Please, be stricter to the similar UBIFS patch
> > which you was going to send.
>
> Now I'm confused. I added this msg as part of the patch you already
> pushed to your branch but later you requested NOT to add additional msgs
> and if required add it in a different patch. So this was added by me and
> now removed by me - as per your request.

This comment of mine just repeats that request. It talks about being
stricter in the future patches and not add/remove messages. It does not
request to modify this patch. IOW, this change is OK, but please, let's
make sure we do not have them in the UBIFS patch.

> > How about just turning this into a debug message, not removing?
>
> Same here. Removing this because *you* requested it.
> Quoting you from V5:
> "Yes, please, remove these messages or turn them into debugging messages.
> And yes, these should have been added in a separate patch."

OK, just asking.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-10 14:41    [W:0.070 / U:5.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site