Jonathan Lassoff <[email protected]> writes:
> In order for end users to quickly react to new issues that come up in
> production, it is proving useful to leverage the printk indexing system. This
> printk index enables kernel developers to use calls to printk() with changable
> ad-hoc format strings, while still enabling end users to detect changes and
> develop a semi-stable interface for detecting and parsing these messages.
>
> So that detailed FAT messages are captured by this printk index, this patch
> wraps fat_msg with a macro.
>
> PATCH v1 -- Fix indentation with tabs in fat_msg macro
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Lassoff <[email protected]>
Looks good. I prefer removing duplication of message prefix though, not
strong opinion.
e.g.
#define FAT_MSG_PFX "%sFAT-fs (%s): "
printk_index_subsys_emit(FAT_MSG_PFX, level, fmt, ##args);\
_printk(FAT_MSG_PFX "%pV\n", level, sb->s_id, &vaf);
Anyway, if this is same style with others, it is ok.
Acked-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/fat/fat.h | 8 +++++++-
> fs/fat/misc.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.h b/fs/fat/fat.h
> index 02d4d4234956..9b7f917dfe68 100644
> --- a/fs/fat/fat.h
> +++ b/fs/fat/fat.h
> @@ -433,8 +433,14 @@ void __fat_fs_error(struct super_block *sb, int report, const char *fmt, ...);
> __fat_fs_error(sb, 1, fmt , ## args)
> #define fat_fs_error_ratelimit(sb, fmt, args...) \
> __fat_fs_error(sb, __ratelimit(&MSDOS_SB(sb)->ratelimit), fmt , ## args)
> +
> +#define fat_msg(sb, level, fmt, args...) \
> +do { \
> + printk_index_subsys_emit("%sFAT-fs (%s): ", level, fmt, ##args);\
> + _fat_msg(sb, level, fmt, ##args); \
> +} while(0)
> __printf(3, 4) __cold
> -void fat_msg(struct super_block *sb, const char *level, const char *fmt, ...);
> +void _fat_msg(struct super_block *sb, const char *level, const char *fmt, ...);
> #define fat_msg_ratelimit(sb, level, fmt, args...) \
> do { \
> if (__ratelimit(&MSDOS_SB(sb)->ratelimit)) \
> diff --git a/fs/fat/misc.c b/fs/fat/misc.c
> index 91ca3c304211..b0808bb0c75f 100644
> --- a/fs/fat/misc.c
> +++ b/fs/fat/misc.c
> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__fat_fs_error);
> * fat_msg() - print preformated FAT specific messages. Every thing what is
> * not fat_fs_error() should be fat_msg().
> */
> -void fat_msg(struct super_block *sb, const char *level, const char *fmt, ...)
> +void _fat_msg(struct super_block *sb, const char *level, const char *fmt, ...)
> {
> struct va_format vaf;
> va_list args;
> @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ void fat_msg(struct super_block *sb, const char *level, const char *fmt, ...)
> va_start(args, fmt);
> vaf.fmt = fmt;
> vaf.va = &args;
> - printk("%sFAT-fs (%s): %pV\n", level, sb->s_id, &vaf);
> + _printk("%sFAT-fs (%s): %pV\n", level, sb->s_id, &vaf);
> va_end(args);
> }
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]>
On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 at 22:33, OGAWA Hirofumi
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Looks good. I prefer removing duplication of message prefix though, not
> strong opinion.
>
> e.g.
> #define FAT_MSG_PFX "%sFAT-fs (%s): "
> printk_index_subsys_emit(FAT_MSG_PFX, level, fmt, ##args);\
> _printk(FAT_MSG_PFX "%pV\n", level, sb->s_id, &vaf);
>
> Anyway, if this is same style with others, it is ok.
I would agree that defining a macro for the prefix may be useful. It
could be a nice hint to future developers that these things are
somewhat connected.
I can follow-up with a PATCH v2 to include what you suggest.
-- jof