[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1254322378.2960.86.camel@Joe-Laptop.home>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:52:58 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] move #define pr_fmt KBUILD_MODNAME and KMSG_COMPONENT to
Makefiles?
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 11:20 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:54:59 -0700
> Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > If something like were added to a module Makefile:
> > ccflags-y += -D "pr_fmt(fmt)=KBUILD_MODNAME \": \" fmt"
>
> Where is the difference between the definition of the macro in the
> source file? It's still one additional line, no?
Look at net/netfilter/ipvs for instance.
It would have been possible to add:
ccflags-y += -D "KMSG_COMPONENT=IPVS"
ccflags-y += -D "pr_fmt(fmt)=KMSG_COMPONENT \": \" fmt"
to net/netfilter/ipvs/Makefile instead of adding it
to 23 files.
Same sort of thing for drivers/s390/char/Makefile,
though it's less beneficial there.
Multiple
CFLAGS_foo.o += -D "KMSG_COMPONENT=foo"
and a single
ccflags-y += -D "pr_fmt(fmt)=KMSG_COMPONENT \": \" fmt"
> And if you are dreaming of converting all source files
> to the pr_fmt mechanism, this is a big effort ..
I think it could be a useful mechanism to define pr_fmt
for individual module Makefiles and there's no rush...
cheers, Joe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists