[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231018063038.GB1868@Negi>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 23:30:38 -0700
From: Soumya Negi <soumya.negi97@...il.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
Cc: Martyn Welch <martyn@...chs.me.uk>,
Manohar Vanga <manohar.vanga@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
outreachy@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: vme_user: Replace printk() with
pr_*(),dev_*()
Hi Julia,
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 07:47:29AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023, Soumya Negi wrote:
>
> > vme.c uses printk() to log messages. To improve and standardize message
> > formatting, use logging mechanisms pr_err()/pr_warn() and
> > dev_err()/dev_warn() instead. Retain the printk log levels of the
> > messages during replacement.
>
> It's not possible to use the dev_ functions more often? The pr_functions
> don't give context information, and the message don't seem to give much
> context information either.
>
> julia
>
Yes, I think there can be more dev_*() functions.
Most of the dev_ that can be added are error/warning messages where the bridge's
'struct device' instance is accessible & can be fed to dev_ fns. Although I went
through the VME subsystem docs, I wasn't sure if the bridge's context made sense
to be printed with those messages. So I wrote them as pr_ functions.
Should I add them and send a v2 for review?
Regards,
Soumya
Powered by blists - more mailing lists