[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <466EE7E6.40100@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:37:26 -0700
From: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
CC: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, randy.dunlap@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC -v3] NET: Implement a standard ndev_printk family
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 17:40 -0700, Auke Kok wrote:
>>> +#define ndev_err(netdev, level, format, arg...) \
>>> + do { \
>>> + struct net_device *__nd = (netdev); \
>>> + if ((__nd)->msg_enable & NETIF_MSG_##level) \
>>> + printk(KERN_ERR "%s: %s: " format, (__nd)->name, \
>>> + (__nd)->dev.parent->bus_id, ## arg); \
>>> + } while (0)
>>> +
>> I think it's better to remove the macro concatenation/obfuscation
>> of the NETIF_MSG_##level argument and simply pass the appropriate
>> NETIF_MSG_<type> directly to these ndev_<level> calls.
>>
>> It would also simplify the more than 300 calls in drivers/net of
>>
>> if (netif_msg_<type>(ptr))
>> printk(foo)
>>
>> to
>>
>> ndev_<level>(netdev, NETIF_MSG_<type>, fmt, args)
>
> I think this is a whole lot of iteration and effort for a non-problem.
Why do you say that? What is your motivation for that statement? Can you be a
bit more descriptive/constructive?
I have often seen comments on drivers adding new printk's and lots of them
completely ignore the msg_enable bits while advertising that they do thought
some debug/ethtool way. tg3, sky2, r8169, etc... all advertise that they allow
setting/changing msg_enable yet don't actually do _anything_ with the bits.
Only 3 other driver besides the ones I've patched get it right....
How is that a non-problem?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists