[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YHVnm+MFvUZ7PYRd@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:42:51 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Fabio Aiuto <fabioaiuto83@...il.com>
Cc: joe@...ches.com, julia.lawall@...ia.fr,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cocci script hints request
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 11:24:56AM +0200, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 11:11:38AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 11:04:01AM +0200, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I would like to improve the following coccinelle script:
> > >
> > > @@
> > > expression a, fmt;
> > > expression list var_args;
> > > @@
> > >
> > > - DBG_871X_LEVEL(a, fmt, var_args);
> > > + printk(fmt, var_args);
> > >
> > > I would replace the DBG_871X_LEVEL macro with printk,
> >
> > No you really do not, you want to change that to a dev_*() call instead
> > depending on the "level" of the message.
> >
> > No "raw" printk() calls please, I will just reject them :)
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> but there are very few occurences of DBG_871X_LEVEL in module init functions:
Then do those "by hand", if they really are needed.
Drivers, when they are working properly, are totally quiet.
>
> static int __init rtw_drv_entry(void)
> {
> int ret;
>
> DBG_871X_LEVEL(_drv_always_, "module init start\n");
Horrible, please remove.
> dump_drv_version(RTW_DBGDUMP);
> #ifdef BTCOEXVERSION
> DBG_871X_LEVEL(_drv_always_, "rtl8723bs BT-Coex version = %s\n", BTCOEXVERSION);
Not needed at all.
> #endif /* BTCOEXVERSION */
>
> sdio_drvpriv.drv_registered = true;
>
> ret = sdio_register_driver(&sdio_drvpriv.r871xs_drv);
> if (ret != 0) {
> sdio_drvpriv.drv_registered = false;
> rtw_ndev_notifier_unregister();
> }
>
> DBG_871X_LEVEL(_drv_always_, "module init ret =%d\n", ret);
Again, not needed this is noise and if someone really needs to debug
this, they can use the built-in kernel ftrace logic instead.
> return ret;
> }
>
> where I don't have a device available... shall I pass NULL to
> first argument?
No, that would be a mess :)
I bet almost all of these can be removed if they are like the above
examples as we do not need a lot of "look, the code got here!" type of
messages at all.
> Another question: may I use netdev_dbg in case of rtl8723bs?
Yes please, that is even better and recommended.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists