From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.11.231]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1XnoTt-0000P0-Ft for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:54:06 +0000 Message-ID: <5460B553.5060401@codeaurora.org> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:53:39 +0200 From: Tanya Brokhman MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dedekind1@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBI: Extend UBI layer debug/messaging capabilities - cosmetics References: <1415531185-2343-1-git-send-email-tlinder@codeaurora.org> <1415621918.22887.80.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1415621918.22887.80.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, open list , hujianyang@huawei.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Brian Norris , David Woodhouse List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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. > >> >> - if (!ubi->free.rb_node || (ubi->free_count - ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs < 1)) { >> - ubi_warn(ubi, "Can't get peb for fastmap:anchor=%d, free_cnt=%d, reserved=%d", >> - anchor, ubi->free_count, ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs); >> + if (!ubi->free.rb_node || (ubi->free_count - ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs < 1)) >> goto out; > > 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. > > >> - if (kthread_should_stop()) { >> - ubi_msg(ubi, "background thread \"%s\" should stop, PID %d", >> - ubi->bgt_name, task_pid_nr(current)); >> + if (kthread_should_stop()) >> break; >> - } > > 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." > > Artem. > Thanks, Tanya Brokhman -- Qualcomm Israel, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project