On Mon, 31 May 2010, David Miller wrote:
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 21:07:09 +1000 (EST)
>
> > Apparently David now wants me to submit this again --
> >
> > if (ei_debug)
> > pr_debug(...)
> >
> > David, if that code is acceptable, please let me know.
>
> The only thing I care about is at the moment that you don't do something
> that ends up dropping the pr_fmt prefix.
>
> The pr_fmt define at the beginning of the driver is for nothing if we
> end up adding exceptions that end up eliding it for no good reason.
> And that's what your patch was doing.
>
Since you have rejected my most recent patch submission, which uses pr_fmt
explicitly, I imagine that what you are trying to say here is that only
pr_debug or pr_info are acceptable.
Now, so that we don't have to go through pointless resubmission
iterations, can you tell me which of the following you prefer:
if (ei_debug)
pr_debug(...)
OR
if (ei_debug)
pr_info(...)
Thanks.
Finn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
