[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080624002023.0fadc1d1@olorin>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:20:23 +0200
From: FD Cami <francois.cami@...e.fr>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
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@....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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists