On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 6:07 PM Doug Anderson <diand...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 9:43 AM Arnd Bergmann <a...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > -#define v1printk(a...) do { \
> > - if (verbose) \
> > - printk(KERN_INFO a); \
> > - } while (0)
> > -#define v2printk(a...) do { \
> > - if (verbose > 1) \
> > - printk(KERN_INFO a); \
> > - touch_nmi_watchdog(); \
> > - } while (0)
> > -#define eprintk(a...) do { \
> > - printk(KERN_ERR a); \
> > - WARN_ON(1); \
> > - } while (0)
> > +#define v1printk(a...) do { \
>
> nit: In addition to the indentation change you're also lining up the
> backslashes. Is that just personal preference, or is there some
> official recommendation in the kernel? I don't really have a strong
> opinion either way (IMO each style has its advantages).
I don't think there is an official recommendation, I just think the
style is more common, and it helped my figure out what the
indentation should look like in this case.
>
> > + if (verbose) \
> > + printk(KERN_INFO a); \
> > +} while (0)
> > +#define v2printk(a...) do { \
> > + if (verbose > 1) \
> > + printk(KERN_INFO a); \
> > + touch_nmi_watchdog(); \
>
> This touch_nmi_watchdog() is pretty wonky. I guess maybe the
> assumption is that the "verbose level 2" prints are so chatty that the
> printing might prevent us from touching the NMI watchdog in the way
> that we normally do and thus we need an extra one here?
>
> ...but, in that case, I think the old code was _wrong_ and that the
> intention was that the touch_nmi_watchdog() should only be if "verose
> > 1" as the indentation implied. There doesn't feel like a reason to
> touch the watchdog if we're not doing anything slow.
No idea. It was like this in Jason's original version from 2008.
Arnd
_______________________________________________
Kgdb-bugreport mailing list
Kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kgdb-bugreport
