Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:53:39 +0200 | From | Tanya Brokhman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] UBI: Extend UBI layer debug/messaging capabilities - cosmetics |
| |
On 11/10/2014 2:18 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 13:06 +0200, Tanya Brokhman wrote: >> >> /* Normal UBI messages */ >> #define ubi_msg(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_notice("UBI-%d: %s:" fmt "\n", \ >> - ubi->ubi_num, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__) >> + (ubi ? ubi->ubi_num : UBI_MAX_DEVICES), \ >> + __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__) >> /* UBI warning messages */ >> #define ubi_warn(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_warn("UBI-%d warning: %s: " fmt "\n", \ >> - ubi->ubi_num, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__) >> + (ubi ? ubi->ubi_num : UBI_MAX_DEVICES), \ >> + __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__) >> /* UBI error messages */ >> #define ubi_err(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_err("UBI-%d error: %s: " fmt "\n", \ >> - ubi->ubi_num, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__) >> + (ubi ? ubi->ubi_num : UBI_MAX_DEVICES), \ >> + __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__) > > Why did you make these changes? It is preferable to not add another 'if' > statement to this macro to handle one or 2 cases - much bloat, little > gain. > > Could we please avoid this?
I just wanted to be on the safe side and prevent this macro being called with ubi=NULL that may crash the system. If you still prefer the "if" removed will do.
> >> >> - if (!ubi->free.rb_node || (ubi->free_count - ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs < 1)) { >> - ubi_warn(ubi, "Can't get peb for fastmap:anchor=%d, free_cnt=%d, reserved=%d", >> - anchor, ubi->free_count, ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs); >> + if (!ubi->free.rb_node || (ubi->free_count - ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs < 1)) >> goto out; > > The warning looks pretty poor, so I do not mind to remove it, but I > thought your patch is about adding a parameter, but you mix different > kinds of things there. Please, be stricter to the similar UBIFS patch > which you was going to send.
Now I'm confused. I added this msg as part of the patch you already pushed to your branch but later you requested NOT to add additional msgs and if required add it in a different patch. So this was added by me and now removed by me - as per your request.
> > >> - if (kthread_should_stop()) { >> - ubi_msg(ubi, "background thread \"%s\" should stop, PID %d", >> - ubi->bgt_name, task_pid_nr(current)); >> + if (kthread_should_stop()) >> break; >> - } > > How about just turning this into a debug message, not removing?
Same here. Removing this because *you* requested it. Quoting you from V5: "Yes, please, remove these messages or turn them into debugging messages. And yes, these should have been added in a separate patch."
> > Artem. >
Thanks, Tanya Brokhman -- Qualcomm Israel, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
| |