Re: [PATCH] extX: convert prink(KERN_WARNING) to extX_warning()

[FD Cami <francois.cami@free.fr>]

Hi,

(Eric and Randy added as CC to keep track of this)

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:31:07 -0600
Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com> wrote:

> On Jun 22, 2008  20:18 +0200, FD Cami wrote:
> > This patch takes a shot at replacing the direct use of printk(KERN_WARNING)
> > in extX by extX_warning. We now get the device number in the warning message :
> > "EXT3-fs warning (device hda1): ext3_setup_super: maximal mount count reached, running e2fsck is recommended"
> > It also adds the device information on a pair of printk(KERN_ERR) (this was
> > first suggested by Kasper two weeks ago).
> 
> The one issue is that KERN_ERR != KERN_WARNING, so these errors might
> not be visible on the console, or may not be saved to the syslog.

Hmmm, I did not replace any KERN_ERR by ext3_warning / KERN_WARNING, but
made those KERN_ERR calls more verbose. Does that change anything ?

For the record, I wanted to replace KERN_ERR calls by calls to a wrapper
much like ext3_warning (but obviously calling KERN_ERR), later on.

> The other minor difference is that the function name is also printed, and
> this makes the error message very long.

Ack, not pretty. Will fix that in next version.

> One suggestion is to create a separate macro that passes the KERN_*
> flag and __func__ to ext3_console_msg(), and call that from
> ext3_warning() and a new ext3_start_error() function.  I always found
> it annoying to have to specify __func__ as a parameter for every call.

OK, will do. Thanks for the suggestion.

> >  	ext3_warning(sb, __func__,
> > -		     "updating to rev %d because of new feature flag, "
> > -		     "running e2fsck is recommended",
> > -		     EXT3_DYNAMIC_REV);
> > +			"updating to rev %d because of new feature flag, "
> > +			"running e2fsck is recommended",
> > +			EXT3_DYNAMIC_REV);
> 
> Please don't change all of the indenting.  The old indending is proper
> linux coding style (aligned with previous '('), the new one is not.

Then this (old) coding style is not consistent within super.c , and not 
consistent with the example given in Documentation/CodingStyle either.
I will "fix" the indentation in a separate patch for the whole file, to
be merged or not.

> Note that you need to split up the patches for ext2, ext3, ext4 into
> separate emails.  I'd suggest just sending one of them until we agree
> on what is right, then submitting the rest afterward.

OK. I did ext3/ext4 at once because of what Andrew replied to Kasper :
"We like to keep ext3 and ext4 in sync as much as poss, please."
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/9/79
But I can do ext3 first and then back / forward port to ext2 and ext4 as
well, as you suggest.

Thank you very much for replying.

Best,

Francois