From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (e31.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 046841A2AE3 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:19:37 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from /spool/local by e31.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:19:35 -0600 Received: from b03cxnp08025.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08025.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.17]) by d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75201FF002A for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:10:44 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by b03cxnp08025.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id t2NMJMmr35323912 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:19:22 -0700 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id t2NMIEt4018709 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:18:15 -0600 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:17:20 -0700 From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [2/9] powerpc/hv24x7: Remove unnecessary parameter Message-ID: <20150323221720.GB6013@us.ibm.com> References: <1424210434-28070-3-git-send-email-sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150317001352.69BC914010F@ozlabs.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20150317001352.69BC914010F@ozlabs.org> Cc: peterz@infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Michael Ellerman [mpe@ellerman.id.au] wrote: | On Tue, 2015-17-02 at 22:00:27 UTC, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: | > Use pr_notice_ratelimited() to log error messages and remove | > the 'success_expected' parameter. | | I don't understand how this is equivalent? They are two unrelated changes that I should have separated. | | The current code uses success_expected to indicate that once it's done the | request once and found that it works, it then expects the request to continue | working, and if it doesn't then that is an error. The current code is using success_expected to _not_ log an error if that initial request fails. i.e we silently return -EIO here. I think the 'success_expected' parameter is not really necessary. We can simply log the message even for that initial request. And we can log it a lower priority than KERN_ERR since the message is mostly for developers rather than users who would use event names (which encode/abstract the domain and offset values). | | Using pr_ratelimited() will do the opposite, ie. the first failure will print a | message, but that may not really indicate an error, it may just be a badly | configured request. | | Or at least that's how I understand it, please convince me I'm wrong :) | | cheers | _______________________________________________ | Linuxppc-dev mailing list | Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org | https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev