[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1457807005.11972.9.camel@perches.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 10:23:25 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>,
James Nunez <james.a.nunez@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] staging: lustre: Correct missing newline for CERROR
call in sfw_handle_server_rpc
On Sat, 2016-03-12 at 13:00 -0500, James Simmons wrote:
> From: James Nunez <james.a.nunez@...el.com>
>
> This is one of the fixes broken out of patch 10000 that was
> missed in the merger. With this fix the CERROR called in
> sfw_handle_server_rpc will print out correctly.
Speaking of CERROR and logging, it it really useful
for each CERROR use to have 2 static structs?
In CERROR -> CDEBUG_LIMIT there is a:
static struct cfs_debug_limit_state cdls;
(12 or 16 bytes depending on 32/64 bit arch)
and in CDEBUG_LIMIT -> _CDEBUG
static struct libcfs_debug_msg_data msgdata;
(24 or 36 bytes depending on 32/64 bit arch)
That seems a largish bit of data and code to initialize
these structs for over a thousand call sites.
Wouldn't a single static suffice?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists