Messages in this thread | | | From | Patrick Farrell <> | Subject | RE: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH v4 10/13] staging: lustre: lnet: lnet: checkpatch.pl fixes | Date | Sat, 23 May 2015 03:13:42 +0000 |
| |
Since it is not actually doing a printk - at least, not necessarily - I like lustre_logmsg. lustre_output seems too vague.
- Patrick ________________________________________ From: HPDD-discuss [hpdd-discuss-bounces@lists.01.org] on behalf of Joe Perches [joe@perches.com] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 7:36 PM To: Drokin, Oleg Cc: <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>; <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; <kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>; <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Julia Lawall; <HPDD-discuss@ml01.01.org>; <lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org> Subject: Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH v4 10/13] staging: lustre: lnet: lnet: checkpatch.pl fixes
On Sat, 2015-05-23 at 00:25 +0000, Drokin, Oleg wrote: > On May 22, 2015, at 8:18 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > >>>> I wonder what is more clear about that in your opinion ve > >>>> lustre_error/lustre_debug? > >>> > >>> The fact that you have to explain this shows that it's > >>> at least misleading unless you completely understand the > >>> code. > >> > >> Or you know, you might take the function name at the face value > >> and assume that CERROR means it's an error and CDEBUG means it's a debug message? > > > > Maybe, but I think that it'd be better if the mechanism > > it uses was more plainly named something like lustre_log. > > While the idea seems good, the biggest obstacle here is such that > there's already a thing called lustre log (llog for short too) - > it's kind of a distributed journal of operations. > > Its there a different synonym, I wonder?
Maybe: lustre_printk, lustre_logmsg, lustre_output
_______________________________________________ HPDD-discuss mailing list HPDD-discuss@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/hpdd-discuss
| |