All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tanya Brokhman <tlinder@codeaurora.org>
To: dedekind1@gmail.com
Cc: dedeking1@gmail.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: ubi: Extend UBI layer debug/messaging capabilities
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 11:02:23 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <542A638F.6090703@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1411905665.11836.15.camel@karhu>

On 9/28/2014 3:01 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-09-28 at 09:36 +0300, Tanya Brokhman wrote:
>> If there is more then one UBI device mounted, there is no way to
>> distinguish between messages from different UBI devices.
>> Add device number to all ubi layer message types.
>
> Hi, the goal looks legit to me, but the patch is so large that I do not
> think that I can really review it in this form.
>
> a) A patch which changes the macros (ubi_err(), etc)

If I divide the patches like this, patch (a) wont compile

> b) A set of patches which do not change messages at all, but add the
> 'ubi' parameter to the places where it is missing.
> c) A patch which changes the messages.

I think patches (b)+(C) can be combined into one patch. Don't you agree? 
I changed ~2 or 3 messages that were printing ubi number by themselves. 
No need for a separate patch for this. Don't you agree?

>
> So a) will be the most important patch for the reviewer. b) - more or
> less mechanical changes of a similar kind. c) - the same.
>
> Also, if you add a parameter to 'ubi_err()' and the other printing
> wrappers, add 'ubi' there, not 'ubi_num'. This will allow to prefix
> messages with vary different things, not just the device number in the
> future. So the calls would look like
>
> ubi_err(ubi, "inconsistent used_ebs");
>
> Once this is done, the series should be more reviewable. The next thing
> I'd check is whether we really need to change all the messages, or most
> of them, or we actually need to change only a small part of them. In the
> former case, it is OK to do what you do, I guess. In the latter case we
> probably better off with introducing a separate set of printing macros
> and leave the existing ones as they are.

Large portion of the messages needs updating. I think perhaps I'll 
overcome the messages during init (when I don't' have the ubi yet) in a 
different manner and add "ubi" not "ubi_num" parameter to the macros, as 
you suggested

>
> Thanks!
>


-- 
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, 
hosted by The Linux Foundation

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tanya Brokhman <tlinder@codeaurora.org>
To: dedekind1@gmail.com
Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	dedeking1@gmail.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: ubi: Extend UBI layer debug/messaging capabilities
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 11:02:23 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <542A638F.6090703@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1411905665.11836.15.camel@karhu>

On 9/28/2014 3:01 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-09-28 at 09:36 +0300, Tanya Brokhman wrote:
>> If there is more then one UBI device mounted, there is no way to
>> distinguish between messages from different UBI devices.
>> Add device number to all ubi layer message types.
>
> Hi, the goal looks legit to me, but the patch is so large that I do not
> think that I can really review it in this form.
>
> a) A patch which changes the macros (ubi_err(), etc)

If I divide the patches like this, patch (a) wont compile

> b) A set of patches which do not change messages at all, but add the
> 'ubi' parameter to the places where it is missing.
> c) A patch which changes the messages.

I think patches (b)+(C) can be combined into one patch. Don't you agree? 
I changed ~2 or 3 messages that were printing ubi number by themselves. 
No need for a separate patch for this. Don't you agree?

>
> So a) will be the most important patch for the reviewer. b) - more or
> less mechanical changes of a similar kind. c) - the same.
>
> Also, if you add a parameter to 'ubi_err()' and the other printing
> wrappers, add 'ubi' there, not 'ubi_num'. This will allow to prefix
> messages with vary different things, not just the device number in the
> future. So the calls would look like
>
> ubi_err(ubi, "inconsistent used_ebs");
>
> Once this is done, the series should be more reviewable. The next thing
> I'd check is whether we really need to change all the messages, or most
> of them, or we actually need to change only a small part of them. In the
> former case, it is OK to do what you do, I guess. In the latter case we
> probably better off with introducing a separate set of printing macros
> and leave the existing ones as they are.

Large portion of the messages needs updating. I think perhaps I'll 
overcome the messages during init (when I don't' have the ubi yet) in a 
different manner and add "ubi" not "ubi_num" parameter to the macros, as 
you suggested

>
> Thanks!
>


-- 
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, 
hosted by The Linux Foundation

  reply	other threads:[~2014-09-30  8:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-09-28  6:36 [PATCH] mtd: ubi: Extend UBI layer debug/messaging capabilities Tanya Brokhman
2014-09-28  6:36 ` Tanya Brokhman
2014-09-28  6:36 ` Tanya Brokhman
2014-09-28  8:01 ` Richard Weinberger
2014-09-28  8:01   ` Richard Weinberger
2014-09-28  8:01   ` Richard Weinberger
2014-09-28  8:24   ` Tanya Brokhman
2014-09-28  8:24     ` Tanya Brokhman
2014-09-28 12:15     ` Artem Bityutskiy
2014-09-28 12:15       ` Artem Bityutskiy
2014-09-28 12:14   ` Artem Bityutskiy
2014-09-28 12:14     ` Artem Bityutskiy
2014-09-28 12:01 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2014-09-28 12:01   ` Artem Bityutskiy
2014-09-30  8:02   ` Tanya Brokhman [this message]
2014-09-30  8:02     ` Tanya Brokhman
2014-09-29 10:50 ` Kiran Padwal
2014-09-29 10:50   ` Kiran Padwal
2014-09-29 12:01   ` Richard Weinberger
2014-09-29 12:01     ` Richard Weinberger
2014-09-29 12:32     ` Kiran Padwal
2014-09-29 12:32       ` Kiran Padwal
2014-09-29 12:37       ` Richard Weinberger
2014-09-29 12:37         ` Richard Weinberger
2014-09-30  7:30         ` Tanya Brokhman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=542A638F.6090703@codeaurora.org \
    --to=tlinder@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
    --cc=dedekind1@gmail.com \
    --cc=dedeking1@gmail.com \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.