[PATCH] m68k/setup: Use pr_*() instead of plain printk()

[PATCH] m68k/setup: Use pr_*() instead of plain printk()

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
---
 arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c |   18 +++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c b/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c
index e67e531..a2c2c0c 100644
--- a/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c
+++ b/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static void __init m68k_parse_bootinfo(const struct bi_record *record)
 				m68k_memory[m68k_num_memory].size = data[1];
 				m68k_num_memory++;
 			} else
-				printk("m68k_parse_bootinfo: too many memory chunks\n");
+				pr_warn("m68k_parse_bootinfo: too many memory chunks\n");
 			break;
 
 		case BI_RAMDISK:
@@ -197,8 +197,8 @@ static void __init m68k_parse_bootinfo(const struct bi_record *record)
 				unknown = 1;
 		}
 		if (unknown)
-			printk("m68k_parse_bootinfo: unknown tag 0x%04x ignored\n",
-			       record->tag);
+			pr_warn("m68k_parse_bootinfo: unknown tag 0x%04x ignored\n",
+				   record->tag);
 		record = (struct bi_record *)((unsigned long)record +
 					      record->size);
 	}
@@ -206,8 +206,8 @@ static void __init m68k_parse_bootinfo(const struct bi_record *record)
 	m68k_realnum_memory = m68k_num_memory;
 #ifdef CONFIG_SINGLE_MEMORY_CHUNK
 	if (m68k_num_memory > 1) {
-		printk("Ignoring last %i chunks of physical memory\n",
-		       (m68k_num_memory - 1));
+		pr_warn("Ignoring last %i chunks of physical memory\n",
+			(m68k_num_memory - 1));
 		m68k_num_memory = 1;
 	}
 #endif
@@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
 		asm (".chip 68060; movec %%pcr,%0; .chip 68k"
 		     : "=d" (pcr));
 		if (((pcr >> 8) & 0xff) <= 5) {
-			printk("Enabling workaround for errata I14\n");
+			pr_warn("Enabling workaround for errata I14\n");
 			asm (".chip 68060; movec %0,%%pcr; .chip 68k"
 			     : : "d" (pcr | 0x20));
 		}
@@ -353,7 +353,7 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
 				     BOOTMEM_DEFAULT);
 		initrd_start = (unsigned long)phys_to_virt(m68k_ramdisk.addr);
 		initrd_end = initrd_start + m68k_ramdisk.size;
-		printk("initrd: %08lx - %08lx\n", initrd_start, initrd_end);
+		pr_info("initrd: %08lx - %08lx\n", initrd_start, initrd_end);
 	}
 #endif
 
@@ -538,9 +538,9 @@ void check_bugs(void)
 {
 #ifndef CONFIG_M68KFPU_EMU
 	if (m68k_fputype == 0) {
-		printk(KERN_EMERG "*** YOU DO NOT HAVE A FLOATING POINT UNIT, "
+		pr_emerg("*** YOU DO NOT HAVE A FLOATING POINT UNIT, "
 			"WHICH IS REQUIRED BY LINUX/M68K ***\n");
-		printk(KERN_EMERG "Upgrade your hardware or join the FPU "
+		pr_emerg("Upgrade your hardware or join the FPU "
 			"emulation project\n");
 		panic("no FPU");
 	}
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH] m68k/setup: Use pr_*() instead of plain printk()

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2013-06-30 at 11:48 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>

Hi Geert, just trivial comments...

> diff --git a/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c b/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c

> @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static void __init m68k_parse_bootinfo(const struct bi_record *record)
[]
> -				printk("m68k_parse_bootinfo: too many memory chunks\n");
> +				pr_warn("m68k_parse_bootinfo: too many memory chunks\n");

These are generally better written by
removing the hand-written function name
and using "%s: ", __func__

				pr_warn("%s: too many memory chunks\n",
					__func__);

> @@ -197,8 +197,8 @@ static void __init m68k_parse_bootinfo(const struct bi_record *record)

> -			printk("m68k_parse_bootinfo: unknown tag 0x%04x ignored\n",
> -			       record->tag);
> +			pr_warn("m68k_parse_bootinfo: unknown tag 0x%04x ignored\n",
> +				   record->tag);

etc.

> @@ -538,9 +538,9 @@ void check_bugs(void)
>  {
>  #ifndef CONFIG_M68KFPU_EMU
>  	if (m68k_fputype == 0) {
> -		printk(KERN_EMERG "*** YOU DO NOT HAVE A FLOATING POINT UNIT, "
> +		pr_emerg("*** YOU DO NOT HAVE A FLOATING POINT UNIT, "
>  			"WHICH IS REQUIRED BY LINUX/M68K ***\n");
> -		printk(KERN_EMERG "Upgrade your hardware or join the FPU "
> +		pr_emerg("Upgrade your hardware or join the FPU "
>  			"emulation project\n");

It would be nicer to coalesce the formats
into a single line.

Re: [PATCH] m68k/setup: Use pr_*() instead of plain printk()

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c b/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c
>
>> @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static void __init m68k_parse_bootinfo(const struct bi_record *record)
> []
>> -                             printk("m68k_parse_bootinfo: too many memory chunks\n");
>> +                             pr_warn("m68k_parse_bootinfo: too many memory chunks\n");
>
> These are generally better written by
> removing the hand-written function name
> and using "%s: ", __func__
>
>                                 pr_warn("%s: too many memory chunks\n",
>                                         __func__);

I had tried that, too. But surprisingly (although the same function
name was in two
messages), it increased the size of the kernel image.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [PATCH] m68k/setup: Use pr_*() instead of plain printk()

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 23:02 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c b/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c
> >
> >> @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static void __init m68k_parse_bootinfo(const struct bi_record *record)
> > []
> >> -                             printk("m68k_parse_bootinfo: too many memory chunks\n");
> >> +                             pr_warn("m68k_parse_bootinfo: too many memory chunks\n");
> >
> > These are generally better written by
> > removing the hand-written function name
> > and using "%s: ", __func__
> >
> >                                 pr_warn("%s: too many memory chunks\n",
> >                                         __func__);
> 
> I had tried that, too. But surprisingly (although the same function
> name was in two
> messages), it increased the size of the kernel image.

That's not surprising really.
There is more call frame stack per use too.

It does eliminate any issue with function renaming
though and is also less typo prone.

And, at some point, those __func__ uses could be
identified and rolled into a mechanism to emit the
function name via a standardized use of %pf and
__builtin_return_address(0) in the printk subsystem.

cheers, Joe