[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150807072537.GJ1891@swordfish>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:25:37 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Salah Triki <salah.triki@....org>, ngupta@...are.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] zram: Replace pr_* with dev_*
On (08/07/15 00:12), Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 15:56 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (08/07/15 15:37), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > [..]
> > where we had clean and nice
> >
> > pr_err("Decompression failed!...
> > pr_info("Unable to allocate temp memory\n"...
> > etc...
> >
> > now we have monsters
> >
> > dev_err(disk_to_dev(zram->disk), "Decompression failed!...
> > dev_info(disk_to_dev(zram->disk), "Unable to allocate temp memory\n"...
> > etc.
> []
> > other changes are very questionable... for example
> > pr_info("Added device: %s\n", zram->disk->disk_name);
> > becomes
> > dev_info(disk_to_dev(zram->disk), "Added device: %s\n", zram->disk->disk_name);
> >
> > why? there is no reason to do this!
>
> This seems a reasonable complaint.
>
> One option is to add some macros like
>
> #define zram_err(zram, fmt, ...) \
> dev_err(disk_to_dev((zram)->disk), fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>
> But the overall utility of the proposed changes is
> moderately low to non-existent.
yes, sure. but we still need to change several internal functions
to start accepting struct zram pointer just to be able to show
extra prefix in error messages (if we want the messages to be more
or less consistent).
-ss
--
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