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

Greg KH
2009-03-11T03:32:35Z

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 04:02:00PM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 05:08:41PM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:29:50 +0100 (CET)
> > Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > The same could be done with the problematic pr_fmt definition:
> > > >
> > > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) __func__ ": " fmt
> > >
> > > No, that also doesn't work:
> > >
> > > | crypto/zlib.c:150: error: expected '}' before string constant
> > > | crypto/zlib.c:150: error: expected ')' before '__func__'
> > > | crypto/zlib.c:162: error: expected '}' before string constant
> > > | crypto/zlib.c:162: error: expected ')' before '__func__'
> > > | crypto/zlib.c:166: error: expected '}' before string constant
> > > | crypto/zlib.c:166: error: expected ')' before '__func__'
> > > | crypto/zlib.c:170: error: expected '}' before string constant
> > > | crypto/zlib.c:170: error: expected ')' before '__func__'
> > >
> > > > > 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 ..
> > >
> > > Bummer, I was so happy I could do things like
> > >
> > > | #define pr_fmt(fmt) "%s:%u: " fmt, __func__, __LINE__
> >
> > Actually that seem like a nice thing to have. With the upstream version of
> > dynamic_pr_debug this works, there the format string is used only on a printk.
> > git commit 25b67b75587d43ff3f09ad88c03c70a38372d95d introduces the code
> > that pastes the format string to the _ddebug structure.
> >
>
> hmmm...yeah, some macro magic in include/linux/dynamic_debug.h converts
> the 'fmt' arg into a series of strings. It doesn't look as pretty in the
> dynamic debug control file:
>
> crypto/zlib.c:333 [zlib]zlib_decompress_final - "\042%s: \042
> \042avail_in %u, avail_out %u (consumed %u, produced %u)\n\042,
> __func__"
>
> with all those '\042' there, which are the '"' characters, but we
> probably could live with it.
>
> patch below.

Can you resend this with a description of what the patch does so I can
apply it?

thanks,

greg k-h