lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/4] lib: list_sort: Various minor improvements
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 00:28:18 +0200 Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote:

> > We may as well do the pr_foo() conversion as well. As often happens,
> > the results are quite pleasing.
> >
> > --- a/lib/list_sort.c~lib-list_sortc-convert-to-pr_foo
> > +++ a/lib/list_sort.c
> > @@ -1,3 +1,6 @@
> > +
> > +#define pr_fmt(fmt) "list_sort_test: " fmt
> > +
> > #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > #include <linux/module.h>
> > #include <linux/list_sort.h>
> > @@ -125,9 +128,8 @@ void list_sort(void *priv, struct list_h
> > }
> > if (lev > max_lev) {
> > if (unlikely(lev >= ARRAY_SIZE(part)-1)) {
> > - printk_once(KERN_DEBUG "list passed to"
> > - " list_sort() too long for"
> > - " efficiency\n");
> > + pr_debug_once("list passed to list_sort() too "
> > + "long for efficiency\n");
>
> Minor comment: Won't this end up saying "list_sort_test: list passed to
> ...", despite the list coming from a 'real' user? Maybe change the first
> #define to '"list_sort: " fmt', the above message to "passed list too
> long for efficiency", and redefine pr_fmt right after #ifdef
> CONFIG_TEST_LIST_SORT.

Yeah, I was hoping nobody would notice that ;)

How about just

printk_once(KERN_DEBUG "list too long for efficiency\n");




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-26 01:01    [W:0.081 / U:0.452 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site