Re: linux-next: driver-core tree build failure

Martin Schwidefsky
2009-03-10T13:55:54Z

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:31:17 +0100 (CET)
Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com> wrote:

> crypto/zlib.c has:
>
> #define pr_fmt(fmt) "%s: " fmt, __func__
>
> If CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG is set, include/linux/kernel.h has:
>
> #define pr_debug(fmt, ...) do { \
> dynamic_pr_debug(pr_fmt(fmt), ##__VA_ARGS__); \
> } while (0)
>
> include/linux/dynamic_debug.h has:
>
> #define dynamic_pr_debug(fmt, ...) do { \
> static struct _ddebug descriptor \
> __used \
> __attribute__((section("__verbose"), aligned(8))) = \
> { KBUILD_MODNAME, __func__, __FILE__, fmt, DEBUG_HASH, \
> DEBUG_HASH2, __LINE__, _DPRINTK_FLAGS_DEFAULT }; \
> if (__dynamic_dbg_enabled(descriptor)) \
> printk(KERN_DEBUG KBUILD_MODNAME ":" fmt, \
> ##__VA_ARGS__); \
> } while (0)

The dynamic_pr_debug macro currently works only with pr_fmt definitions
that do not add additional parameters. The way how we use the pr_fmt
macro is:

#define pr_fmt(fmt) KMSG_COMPONENT ": " fmt

The same could be done with the problematic pr_fmt definition:

#define pr_fmt(fmt) __func__ ": " fmt

> BTW, Martin: Is `#define pr_fmt(fmt) "%s: " fmt, __func__' a valid and
> intended usage of your pr_fmt() infrastructure?

The indended use is a simple prefix to the format string. To paste an
additional parameter is an interesting use of the pr_fmt macro ..

--
blue skies,
Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.