On 11/10/2014 2:18 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 13:06 +0200, Tanya Brokhman wrote:/* Normal UBI messages */ #define ubi_msg(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_notice("UBI-%d: %s:" fmt "\n", \ - ubi->ubi_num, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__) + (ubi ? ubi->ubi_num : UBI_MAX_DEVICES), \ + __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__) /* UBI warning messages */ #define ubi_warn(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_warn("UBI-%d warning: %s: " fmt "\n", \ - ubi->ubi_num, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__) + (ubi ? ubi->ubi_num : UBI_MAX_DEVICES), \ + __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__) /* UBI error messages */ #define ubi_err(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_err("UBI-%d error: %s: " fmt "\n", \ - ubi->ubi_num, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__) + (ubi ? ubi->ubi_num : UBI_MAX_DEVICES), \ + __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)Why did you make these changes? It is preferable to not add another 'if' statement to this macro to handle one or 2 cases - much bloat, little gain. Could we please avoid this?
I just wanted to be on the safe side and prevent this macro being called with ubi=NULL that may crash the system. If you still prefer the "if" removed will do.
- if (!ubi->free.rb_node || (ubi->free_count - ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs < 1)) { - ubi_warn(ubi, "Can't get peb for fastmap:anchor=%d, free_cnt=%d, reserved=%d", - anchor, ubi->free_count, ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs); + if (!ubi->free.rb_node || (ubi->free_count - ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs < 1)) goto out;The warning looks pretty poor, so I do not mind to remove it, but I thought your patch is about adding a parameter, but you mix different kinds of things there. Please, be stricter to the similar UBIFS patch which you was going to send.
Now I'm confused. I added this msg as part of the patch you already pushed to your branch but later you requested NOT to add additional msgs and if required add it in a different patch. So this was added by me and now removed by me - as per your request.
- if (kthread_should_stop()) { - ubi_msg(ubi, "background thread \"%s\" should stop, PID %d", - ubi->bgt_name, task_pid_nr(current)); + if (kthread_should_stop()) break; - }How about just turning this into a debug message, not removing?
Same here. Removing this because *you* requested it. Quoting you from V5: "Yes, please, remove these messages or turn them into debugging messages. And yes, these should have been added in a separate patch."
Artem.
Thanks, Tanya Brokhman -- Qualcomm Israel, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- 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/
