Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:16:37 +0300 | From | Dmitry Kasatkin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] xhci:prevent "callbacks suppressed" when debug is not enabled |
| |
On 16/08/13 20:45, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 08:38:12PM +0300, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@intel.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:26:35AM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote: >>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 05:17:16PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 07:04:55PM +0300, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote: >>>>>> When debug is not enabled and dev_dbg() will expand to nothing, >>>>>> log might be flooded with "callbacks suppressed". If it was not >>>>>> done on purpose, better to use dev_dbg_ratelimited() instead. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Kasatkin <d.kasatkin@samsung.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c | 6 ++---- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> Sarah, does this patch conflict with the trace debug patches being >>>>> worked on? I'll hold off on applying it for now, let me know if it's ok >>>>> or not. >>>> It doesn't conflict with the trace debug patches, because those only >>>> effect debugging with xhci_dbg with the host device, not dev_dbg with >>>> the USB device. This should apply fine to usb-next. >>> At another glance, the patch removes two if blocks, but doesn't >>> re-indent the rest of the lines: >>> >>>> @@ -3060,8 +3060,7 @@ int xhci_queue_intr_tx(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, gfp_t mem_flags, >>>> * to set the polling interval (once the API is added). >>>> */ >>>> if (xhci_interval != ep_interval) { >>>> - if (printk_ratelimit()) >>>> - dev_dbg(&urb->dev->dev, "Driver uses different interval" >>>> + dev_dbg_ratelimited(&urb->dev->dev, "Driver uses different interval" >>>> " (%d microframe%s) than xHCI " >>>> "(%d microframe%s)\n", >>>> ep_interval, >>> That should probably be fixed. >> It actually looks correct when patch is applied. >> >> But it depends what you mean of course. >> It looks like it was before: >> dev_dbg_ratelimited(&urb->dev->dev, "Driver uses different interval" >> " (%d microframe%s) than xHCI " >> "(%d microframe%s)\n", >> ep_interval, >> ep_interval == 1 ? "" : "s", >> >> Or may be you mean: >> dev_dbg_ratelimited(&urb->dev->dev, "Driver uses different interval" >> " (%d microframe%s) than xHCI " >> "(%d microframe%s)\n", >> ep_interval, >> ep_interval == 1 ? "" : "s", > No, it should look like: > > dev_dbg_ratelimited(&urb->dev->dev, > "Driver uses different interval (%d microframe%s) than xHCI (%d microframe%s)\n", > ep_interval, ep_interval == 1 ? "" : "s",
Hello. Sorry I was distracted so much from the kernel.
But putting string to one line make it much over 80 chars. Is that considered OK?
- Dmitry
> and the rest of that call indented the same way. > > thanks, > > greg k-h >
| |