From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] reiserfs: rework reiserfs_warning Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:32:28 -0700 Message-ID: <42DC03CC.5000502@namesys.com> References: <20050718174230.GA23863@locomotive.unixthugs.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20050718174230.GA23863@locomotive.unixthugs.org> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Jeff Mahoney Cc: ReiserFS List 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. > >