Re: [PATCH 3/5] reiserfs: rework reiserfs_warning

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Jeff, thanks so kindly for cleaning all this up, it must have been very
tedious, so extra thanks for it.

I will now quibble about some trivia....

Hans

Jeff Mahoney wrote:

> ReiserFS warnings can be somewhat inconsistent.
> In some cases:
> * a unique identifier may be associated with it
> * the function name may be included
> * the device may be printed separately
>
> This patch aims to make warnings more consistent. reiserfs_warning() prints
> the device name, so printing it a second time is not required. The function
> name for a warning is always helpful in debugging, so it is now automatically
> inserted into the output. Hans has stated that every warning should have
> a unique identifier. Some cases lack them, others really shouldn't have them.
>  
>
What cases should not have them?

> reiserfs_warning() now expects an id associated with each message. In the
> event that it is missing, MISSING_ID is used. In the case where one is simply
> not desired, NO_ID is used. Both of these are currently #define'd to NULL,
> but may be changed in the future.
>  
>