From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Xdi26-0002Of-Tl for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 15:59:39 +0000 Message-ID: <1413215953.7906.63.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mtd: ubi: Extend UBI layer debug/messaging capabilities From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com To: Tanya Brokhman , Ezequiel Garcia Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 18:59:13 +0300 In-Reply-To: <1413214637.7906.49.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> References: <1412593268-12377-1-git-send-email-tlinder@codeaurora.org> <1413214637.7906.49.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, open list , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Richard Weinberger , Brian Norris , David Woodhouse List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2014-10-13 at 18:37 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 14:01 +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. > > Looks good to me, pushed to the master branch of the linux-ubifs.git > tree. Later, when the merge window is closed, I'll merge this patch to > the linux-next branch too. Tanya, sorry, I was not careful enough, I merged it and tested against the Linuses head, it is fine. But it does not apply the the linux-ubifs.git tree. There are conflicts. But more importantly, you did not get the 'block.c' right. There we use the same printing macros, but we do not have 'struct ubi_info' there at all. Please, enable the R/O block layer feature and try to compile, it'll fail. The block driver is in 'drivers/mtd/ubi', but it is kind of a separate driver - it does not access the internal UBI data structures. I guess the solution would be to just use pr_* functions there instead. CCing Ezequiel. Please, submit a patch against the 'linux-next' branch of this tree: git://git.infradead.org/linux-ubifs.git Artem.