[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56FBFE3E.7050505@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:26:38 -0500
From: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
JFS Discussion <jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] jfs: logging neatening
On 03/30/2016 11:22 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-03-30 at 10:56 -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>> On 03/30/2016 07:23 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a difference in use between jfs_error and the other
>>> jfs_info, jfs_warn, and jfs_err logging macros. jfs_error is more
>>> like the rest of the kernel and requires a newline as the last
>>> character of the format.
>>>
>>> The jfs_info, jfs_warn, and jfs_err macros add the terminating
>>> newline to the format so the uses do not require them.
>> I think there's an argument for both ways of doing it. I'm sure I had my
>> reasons for automatically adding the newline back when I implemented
>> those macros. (They probably should be inline functions, but that's
>> another issue.)
>
> Nah. It was me. I changed jfs_error awhile back to move the
> newline to the uses.
>
> commit eb8630d7d2fd13589e6a7a3ae2fe1f75f867fbed
> Author: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> Date: Tue Jun 4 16:39:15 2013 -0700
>
> jfs: Update jfs_error
>
> Use a more current logging style.
>
> Add __printf format and argument verification.
>
> Remove embedded function names from formats.
> Add %pf, __builtin_return_address(0) to jfs_error.
> Add newlines to formats for kernel style consistency.
> (One format already had an erroneous newline)
> Coalesce formats and align arguments.
>
> Object size reduced ~1KiB.
>
> $ size fs/jfs/built-in.o*
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 201891 35488 63936 301315 49903 fs/jfs/built-in.o.new
> 202821 35488 64192 302501 49da5 fs/jfs/built-in.o.old
>
> Using inline functions would actually be more code as
> you'd have to handle the log level and newline via
> a vprintk of some type. At least the test could be
> consolidated into the inline though.
Okay.
> Many of the jfs_info calls appear to be function
> tracing and perhaps could be eliminated altogether.
Yeah. They've been in there forever. Should probably have been stripped
out before the code was initially merged.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists