[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120906175158.GB9786@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:51:58 -0400
From: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@...il.com>, Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] dev_<level> and dynamic_debug cleanups
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 04:25:25AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> The recent commit to fix dynamic_debug was a bit unclean.
> Neaten the style for dynamic_debug.
> Reduce the stack use of message logging that uses netdev_printk
> Add utility functions dev_printk_emit and dev_vprintk_emit for /dev/kmsg.
>
> Joe Perches (5):
> dev_dbg/dynamic_debug: Update to use printk_emit, optimize stack
> netdev_printk/dynamic_netdev_dbg: Directly call printk_emit
> netdev_printk/netif_printk: Remove a superfluous logging colon
> dev: Add dev_vprintk_emit and dev_printk_emit
> device and dynamic_debug: Use dev_vprintk_emit and dev_printk_emit
>
Looks Good.
The one thing that is bothering me though, is that for
__dynamic_dev_dbg(), __dynamic_netdev_dbg(), we are copying much of the core
logic of __dev_printk(), __netdev_printk(), respectively. I would prefer
have this in one place. Can we add a 'prefix' argument to __dev_printk(),
and __netdev_printk() that dynamic debug can use, but is simply empty
for dev_printk() and netdev_printk().
Thanks,
-Jason
--
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