Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce FW_INFO* functions and messages | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Thu, 05 Dec 2013 07:55:03 -0800 |
| |
On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 11:30 +0000, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Wed, 04 Dec, at 07:22:57PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > The other part I noticed about this particular patchset is that it's > > not really "firmware" as such, but specifically PC wiht ACPI that > > gets covered here. So rather than generalizing the code, another > > option would be to narrow down the scope and make it > > acpi_{warn,info,dbg} instead. > > Making this specific to ACPI runs the risk of people introducing a > multitude of new logging functions for every subsystem, e.g. > efi_{warn,info,dbg}.
There are many subsystem specific logging functions:
$ grep -rP --include=*.[ch] -oh "\b[a-z_]+_warn\b\s*\(" *| \ sed -r 's/\s*//g'|sort|uniq -c|sort -rn|head -25 3808 dev_warn( 1964 pr_warn( 468 netdev_warn( 194 xfs_warn( 120 xhci_warn( 102 ipoib_warn( 76 netif_warn( 64 tuner_warn( 53 hid_warn( 51 ata_dev_warn( 46 mthca_warn( 45 nv_warn( 41 ubi_warn( 32 wiphy_warn( 32 osm_warn( 31 rbd_warn( 28 ubifs_warn( 27 psmouse_warn( 27 e_warn( 25 blogic_warn( 23 en_warn( 23 ata_link_warn( 22 jfs_warn( 21 csio_warn( 21 cam_warn(
> FWIW, I'd be interested in using something like this patch series to > properly log EFI implementation bugs. The logging for EFI is currently > done fairly haphazardly.
I thought that was the point of embedding the existing FW_INFO, FW_WARN and FW_BUG #defines in formats.
Using logging message scraping to find faults is not a great approach as message content is subject to change.
|  |