Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Mar 2013 20:29:07 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] rbtree_test: use pr_info for module prefix in messages | From | Michel Lespinasse <> |
| |
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 11:54 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Davidlohr Bueso >> <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 10:29 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com> wrote: >> >> > This provides nicer message output. Since it seems more appropriate >> >> > for the nature of this module, also use KERN_INFO instead of other >> >> > levels. >> >> >> >> Why are you changing the ALERTs to INFO? >> > >> > Because of the nature of the messages. They don't justify having a >> > KERN_ALERT level (requiring immediate attention), and it seems a lot >> > more suitable to use INFO instead. >> > >> >> Hmm. I see interval_tree_test using the same alerts. It almost looks >> like the start and end of a test are meant to be alerts. I am not >> saying it shouldn't be changed, however looking for a stronger reason >> than "it seems a lot more suitable to use INFO instead". Are there any >> use-cases in which KERN_ALERTs cause problems? >> > > No 'issue' particularly, just common sense. In any case I have no > problem reverting the changes back to KERN_ALERT, no big deal. > > Andrew, Michel, do you have any preferences? I'm mostly interested in > patch 3/3, do you have any objections?
Sorry for the late reply - I have a lot of upstream email to catch up to.
No objection to the change but I also have to say I'm not quite sure what's the motivation - it'd be easier if you had a 0/3 mail to explain the issue. In particular, I'm not sure if you've been trying to use the test compiled in rather than as a module (which is all I've ever built it as myself :)
-- Michel "Walken" Lespinasse A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
| |