On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 05:16:37PM +0300, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > >> 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 <[email protected]> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> 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?
Yes it is. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
