From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80B4D1D68F for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 23:40:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="nfOCjje6" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F1D8C433C8; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 23:40:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1697154035; bh=heD+8yiZFfHLd4fBFNBdz9KyyNSpTCkcX5TsIu+70ek=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=nfOCjje6a/cFdAv/+qtuSRFo0LnlOFNKoNpfpiK8H1ZlVGy27gz/kkbKYihIV6cZH 08XJ7gGlUDT2XbGoawfWX+7KTEOxhyGLNACCEGebjZxgBUivFa0Hg4Xlcj2Lrm/sE2 mwp8Tx7mEHJ6b12Ub7rhTOhSfQn4XAHV7OJ0CsVk8eSQrlCPUgIRUGzWeZq8MI8vgL pLRlXzW7yXm1gVGAPda1lGHC69H/7miivqPZTfMy1wxIQQT6kwSmCH8U3EZ7kFBhuF uOBnuAh4iRP04UFjzE99Ke9D67Jce22HV+LDENiIenG9hkePlrfG2SF2LmicAS6lLS IQMQ0IlqrgEIQ== Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 16:40:33 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Paul M Stillwell Jr Cc: Tony Nguyen , , , , , , , , , Pucha Himasekhar Reddy Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/5] ice: configure FW logging Message-ID: <20231012164033.1069fb4b@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20231005170110.3221306-1-anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com> <20231005170110.3221306-3-anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com> <20231006170206.297687e2@kernel.org> <835b8308-c2b1-097b-8b1c-e020647b5a33@intel.com> <20231010190110.4181ce87@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:40:04 -0700 Paul M Stillwell Jr wrote: > OK, so what if we changed the code to create a new debugfs file entry > for each module and used the dentry for ther file to know what file is > being written to. Then we would only need to parse the log level. Would > that be acceptable? Yes, even better! > My confusion is around what makes the cmdline parsing harder to follow. > Obviously for me it's easy :) so I am trying to understand your point of > view. Dunno how to explain it other than "took me more than 10min to understand this code and I only had 10min" :) Reviewers have their own angle when evaluation code which doesn't always align with the author's..