From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754249AbbCQANz (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2015 20:13:55 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:42123 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752111AbbCQANy (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2015 20:13:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1424210434-28070-3-git-send-email-sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu , Paul Mackerras From: Michael Ellerman Cc: peterz@infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2/9] powerpc/hv24x7: Remove unnecessary parameter Message-Id: <20150317001352.69BC914010F@ozlabs.org> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:13:52 +1100 (AEDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? 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. 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