[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <871rrlcl72.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 11:17:37 +0200
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
Wambui Karuga <wambui.karugax@...il.com>, airlied@...ux.ie,
daniel@...ll.ch, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rodrigo.vivi@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] drm/i915/gem: conversion to new drm logging macros
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> Quoting Wambui Karuga (2020-01-22 12:57:48)
>> This series is a part of the conversion to the new struct drm_device
>> based logging macros in drm/i915.
>> This series focuses on the drm/i915/gem directory and converts all
>> straightforward instances of the printk based logging macros to the new
>> macros.
>
> Overall, I'm not keen on this as it perpetuates the mistake of putting
> client debug message in dmesg and now gives them even more an air of
> being device driver debug messages. We need a mechanism by which we
> report the details of what a client did wrong back to that client
> (tracefs + context/client getparam to return an isolated debug fd is my
> idea).
I don't disagree, but I also don't think this makes things (much) worse
in that regard.
>
>> Wambui Karuga (2):
>> drm/i915/gem: initial conversion to new logging macros using
>> coccinelle.
>> drm/i915/gem: manual conversion to struct drm_device logging macros.
>
> Still this is a necessary evil for the current situation,
> Acked-by: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Thanks, pushed both.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists