Re: [PATCH] UBI: Extend UBI layer debug/messaging capabilities - cosmetics

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 14:53 +0200, Tanya Brokhman wrote:
> On 11/10/2014 2:18 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 13:06 +0200, Tanya Brokhman wrote:
> >>
> >>   /* Normal UBI messages */
> >>   #define ubi_msg(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_notice("UBI-%d: %s:" fmt "\n", \
> >> -                                        ubi->ubi_num, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >> +                               (ubi ? ubi->ubi_num : UBI_MAX_DEVICES), \
> >> +                               __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >>   /* UBI warning messages */
> >>   #define ubi_warn(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_warn("UBI-%d warning: %s: " fmt "\n", \
> >> -                                       ubi->ubi_num, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >> +                               (ubi ? ubi->ubi_num : UBI_MAX_DEVICES), \
> >> +                               __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >>   /* UBI error messages */
> >>   #define ubi_err(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_err("UBI-%d error: %s: " fmt "\n", \
> >> -                                     ubi->ubi_num, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >> +                               (ubi ? ubi->ubi_num : UBI_MAX_DEVICES), \
> >> +                               __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >
> > Why did you make these changes? It is preferable to not add another 'if'
> > statement to this macro to handle one or 2 cases - much bloat, little
> > gain.
> >
> > Could we please avoid this?
> 
> I just wanted to be on the safe side and prevent this macro being called 
> with ubi=NULL that may crash the system. If you still prefer the "if" 
> removed will do.

On the other hand, these are macros, and this if gets duplicated in many
places and translate into few additional assembly instructions per
message.

> > The warning looks pretty poor, so I do not mind to remove it, but I
> > thought your patch is about adding a parameter, but you mix different
> > kinds of things there. Please, be stricter to the similar UBIFS patch
> > which you was going to send.
> 
> Now I'm confused. I added this msg as part of the patch you already 
> pushed to your branch but later you requested NOT to add additional msgs 
> and if required add it in a different patch. So this was added by me and 
> now removed by me - as per your request.

This comment of mine just repeats that request. It talks about being
stricter in the future patches and not add/remove messages. It does not
request to modify this patch. IOW, this change is OK, but please, let's
make sure we do not have them in the UBIFS patch.

> > How about just turning this into a debug message, not removing?
> 
> Same here. Removing this because *you* requested it.
> Quoting you from V5:
> "Yes, please, remove these messages or turn them into debugging messages.
> And yes, these should have been added in a separate patch."

OK, just asking.