From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] KVM: In kernel pit model Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:43:43 +0200 Message-ID: <47CE876F.7040901@qumranet.com> References: <200803041822.44757.sheng.yang@intel.com> <200803051504.40409.sheng.yang@intel.com> <20080305091529.GA25357@elte.hu> <200803051935.40229.sheng.yang@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To: "Yang, Sheng" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200803051935.40229.sheng.yang@intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Yang, Sheng wrote: > Thanks for comments! > > On Wednesday 05 March 2008 17:15:29 Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> * Yang, Sheng wrote: >> >>> +#if 1 >>> +#define pit_debug(fmt, arg...) printk(KERN_WARNING fmt, ##arg) >>> +#else >>> +#define pit_debug(fmt, arg...) >>> +#endif >>> >> this should use pr_debug() instead i guess. >> > > Um... I followed example on ./virt/kvm/ioapic.c here. Though I think it's good > to substitute all self defined debug printk with pr_debug, why KVM have > little pr_xxx(the only ones are in x86.c)? Maybe for KVM is acting more like > a separate driver, and using printk is easier for separate debug? I really > don't know... > > It's mostly due to lack of knowledge about pr_debug(); it wasn't intentional. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/