[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1006010115030.1536@localhost>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 01:19:06 +1000 (EST)
From: Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: joe@...ches.com, geert@...ux-m68k.org, p_gortmaker@...oo.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac8390: change an error return code and some cleanup,
take 4
On Mon, 31 May 2010, David Miller wrote:
> From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 08:08:13 -0700
>
> > There are many uses of KERN_DEBUG that are reasonable to have always
> > enabled.
>
> Doubtful.
>
> pr_debug() makes a ton of sense as currently implemented. It's for
> messages that we want both compile time and run-time control over.
>
> The case we have here in mac8390 seems like it should stay as pr_info().
> Because 1) it's already controlled by a run-time knob so controlling it
> even further is confusing and 2) the message is "informative", it lets
> the user know a feature cannot be enabled, thus pr_info().
If that is true in general, then ei_debug itself becomes questionable.
In the case of mac8390 at least, I'm certainly leaning toward changing the
pr_info (conditional on ei_debug) to pr_debug (unconditional).
Finn
--
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