Re: [PATCH] Net device error logging

[Larry Kessler <kessler@us.ibm.com>]

On Tuesday 07 October 2003 12:31, Jim Keniston wrote:
> 1. Is __netdev_printk's message-prefix format the right one?  If not,
> what should it be?

IMO, yes its the right format, since it identifies which device, and in a
consistent way similar to dev_printk().  What's more important than re-opening
this debate is making the current version available in the base so drivers can
start being modified to use it.  The message-prefix could change, if
experience indicates a benefit for consumers of printk messages.  

> 2. Should we support some sort of configurable prefix format?  E.g.,
> In my driver, I want the prefix to give the driver name, interface
> name, and source file and line number, so...
> 	netdev->msg_prefix = "%D:%I: %F:%L: ";
 
There are cases where a configurable prefix makes sense, but the goal here for
netdev_printk() was clearly stated from the beginning (id which device...no more, 
no less).  

> 3. Should netdev_* instead be used to enforce the "right" format?

Yes, for reasons already stated.