Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:32:46 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [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");
| |