Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] rust: property: Introduce PropertyGuard

John Hubbard
2025-04-27T22:12:25Z

On 4/26/25 2:50 PM, Remo Senekowitsch wrote:
> On Sat Apr 26, 2025 at 5:02 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 04:35:07PM +0200, Dirk Behme wrote:
>>> On 26.04.25 16:19, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 01:08:39PM +0200, Remo Senekowitsch wrote:
>>>>> On Sat Apr 26, 2025 at 12:15 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
...
>>>> Why do you think it is important to force this error print by having it in
>>>> PropertyGuard::required() and even take an additional device reference for this
>>>> purpose, rather than leaving it to the driver when to print a message for an
>>>> error condition that makes it fail to probe()?
>>>
>>> To my understanding doing the error print in "core" was proposed by
>>> Rob [1]:
>>
>> That is fine, though it doesn't answer my question above. :)
>
> If the question is addressed to me, I don't think it is important.
> I don't have a particular preference either way. I'm just trying to

Generally, printing in libraries an lower level routines (in this case,
"core") is undesirable. We'll do it anyway, sometimes:

a) Behind a *_DEBUG configuration, to debug the core itself, or

b) Desperation: hard to recover from errors, that the upper layers
for some reason lack context to provide an adequate error
message for.

The idea is that the lower level you are in the software stack, the
more rare printing should be.

thanks,
--
John Hubbard

> come up with a solution that is satisfactory to everyone. We should
> hear from Rob if he's ok with removing the logging entirely given the
> limitations.
>