On 16/08/13 20:45, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 08:38:12PM +0300, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sh...@intel.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:26:35AM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 05:17:16PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 07:04:55PM +0300, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote:
>>>>>> When debug is not enabled and dev_dbg() will expand to nothing,
>>>>>> log might be flooded with "callbacks suppressed". If it was not
>>>>>> done on purpose, better to use dev_dbg_ratelimited() instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Kasatkin <d.kasat...@samsung.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c | 6 ++----
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sarah, does this patch conflict with the trace debug patches being
>>>>> worked on? I'll hold off on applying it for now, let me know if it's ok
>>>>> or not.
>>>> It doesn't conflict with the trace debug patches, because those only
>>>> effect debugging with xhci_dbg with the host device, not dev_dbg with
>>>> the USB device. This should apply fine to usb-next.
>>> At another glance, the patch removes two if blocks, but doesn't
>>> re-indent the rest of the lines:
>>>
>>>> @@ -3060,8 +3060,7 @@ int xhci_queue_intr_tx(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, gfp_t
>>>> mem_flags,
>>>> * to set the polling interval (once the API is added).
>>>> */
>>>> if (xhci_interval != ep_interval) {
>>>> - if (printk_ratelimit())
>>>> - dev_dbg(&urb->dev->dev, "Driver uses different
>>>> interval"
>>>> + dev_dbg_ratelimited(&urb->dev->dev, "Driver uses different
>>>> interval"
>>>> " (%d microframe%s) than xHCI "
>>>> "(%d microframe%s)\n",
>>>> ep_interval,
>>> That should probably be fixed.
>> It actually looks correct when patch is applied.
>>
>> But it depends what you mean of course.
>> It looks like it was before:
>> dev_dbg_ratelimited(&urb->dev->dev, "Driver uses different interval"
>> " (%d microframe%s) than xHCI "
>> "(%d microframe%s)\n",
>> ep_interval,
>> ep_interval == 1 ? "" : "s",
>>
>> Or may be you mean:
>> dev_dbg_ratelimited(&urb->dev->dev, "Driver uses different interval"
>> " (%d microframe%s) than xHCI "
>> "(%d microframe%s)\n",
>> ep_interval,
>> ep_interval == 1 ? "" : "s",
> No, it should look like:
>
> dev_dbg_ratelimited(&urb->dev->dev,
> "Driver uses different interval (%d
> microframe%s) than xHCI (%d microframe%s)\n",
> ep_interval, ep_interval == 1 ? "" : "s",
Hello. Sorry I was distracted so much from the kernel.
But putting string to one line make it much over 80 chars.
Is that considered OK?
- Dmitry
> and the rest of that call indented the same way.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
