Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: ubi: Extend UBI layer debug/messaging capabilities | From | Artem Bityutskiy <> | Date | Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:07:11 +0300 |
| |
On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 07:33 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > If you are going to change all the ubi_<level> calls, > can you also please add a terminating newline to all > the uses for consistency with all the other > pr_<level>/dev_<level>/<etc>_<level> calls?
I get the consistency argument.
On the other hand, this is about printing a single line. It is gets prefixed (with "UBI: ") automatically, why wouldn't we append the newline character automatically too?
In the generic functions this is for flexibility: rarely, people to want to print a multi-line message with those. The first line will be prefixed, the following line won't be prefixed.
We do not need that flexibility. And I think that adding hundreds of '\n's just for the sake of consistency to be not very attractive option.
IOW, I do not support this suggestion.
> > > /* UBI error messages */ > > > -#define ubi_err(fmt, ...) pr_err("UBI error: %s: " fmt "\n", \ > > > - __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__) > > > +#define ubi_err(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_err("UBI-%d error: %s: " fmt "\n", \ > > > + ubi->ubi_num, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__) > > Converting these macros to functions using "%pV" > will save quite a bit of text space by removing > a lot of "UBI-%d <foo>: " duplication.
These were added before '%pV' existed, I think. I never used this printk extension, but if it results in a more concise code, sounds like a good idea. But I'd do this separately.
> Using ubi_notice instead of ubi_msg would be a > lot more standard too.
Yes, this could be an OK separate nicification, I think, if someone is willing to do this work. I would not put this item to my TODO list, since this is a lot of changes for with little gain. But I would accept such a patch, sure.
Thanks!
-- Artem.
| |