The function stk1160_dbg gets called too many times, which causes
the output to get flooded with messages. Since stk1160_dbg uses
printk, it is now replaced with dev_warn_ratelimited.
Suggested-by: Phillip Potter <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ghanshyam Agrawal <[email protected]>
---
v2:
Thanks for your suggestions Phillip. I have updated the TODO comment and
used dev_warn_ratelimited for inclusion of kernel warning.
drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c | 12 +++++++++++-
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c b/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c
index f5b75f380c19..a8e0d352a68c 100644
--- a/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c
+++ b/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c
@@ -105,6 +105,16 @@ void stk1160_copy_video(struct stk1160 *dev, u8 *src, int len)
u8 *dst = buf->mem;
int remain;
+ /*
+ * TODO: These stk1160_dbg are very spammy!
+ * We should check why we are getting them.
+ *
+ * UPDATE: One of the reasons (the only one?) for getting these
+ * is incorrect standard (mismatch between expected and configured).
+ * So perhaps, we could add a counter for errors. When the counter
+ * reaches some value, we simply stop streaming.
+ */
+
len -= 4;
src += 4;
@@ -140,7 +150,7 @@ void stk1160_copy_video(struct stk1160 *dev, u8 *src, int len)
/* Let the bug hunt begin! sanity checks! */
if (lencopy < 0) {
- printk_ratelimited("copy skipped: negative lencopy\n");
+ dev_warn_ratelimited(dev, "copy skipped: negative lencopy\n");
return;
}
--
2.25.1
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 09:43:04PM +0530, Ghanshyam Agrawal wrote:
> The function stk1160_dbg gets called too many times, which causes
> the output to get flooded with messages. Since stk1160_dbg uses
> printk, it is now replaced with dev_warn_ratelimited.
>
> Suggested-by: Phillip Potter <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Ghanshyam Agrawal <[email protected]>
> ---
> v2:
> Thanks for your suggestions Phillip. I have updated the TODO comment and
> used dev_warn_ratelimited for inclusion of kernel warning.
>
> drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c b/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c
Hi Ghanshyam,
Thank you for the patch, but it is sadly incorrect.
You have created this V2 against a tree including the V1 version of your
patch. A V2 patch should apply cleanly against the source tree, with no
previous version first needing to be applied.
On another note, why are you using dev_warn_ratelimited here, and if
there's a good reason, why not use it for the other callsites in this
function? (Genuine question here, I've not studied the difference).
Please create a V3, many thanks.
Nacked-by: Phillip Potter <[email protected]>
Regards,
Phil
On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 4:00 AM Phillip Potter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 09:43:04PM +0530, Ghanshyam Agrawal wrote:
> > The function stk1160_dbg gets called too many times, which causes
> > the output to get flooded with messages. Since stk1160_dbg uses
> > printk, it is now replaced with dev_warn_ratelimited.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Phillip Potter <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Ghanshyam Agrawal <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > Thanks for your suggestions Phillip. I have updated the TODO comment and
> > used dev_warn_ratelimited for inclusion of kernel warning.
> >
> > drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c b/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c
>
> Hi Ghanshyam,
>
> Thank you for the patch, but it is sadly incorrect.
>
> You have created this V2 against a tree including the V1 version of your
> patch. A V2 patch should apply cleanly against the source tree, with no
> previous version first needing to be applied.
>
> On another note, why are you using dev_warn_ratelimited here, and if
> there's a good reason, why not use it for the other callsites in this
> function? (Genuine question here, I've not studied the difference).
>
> Please create a V3, many thanks.
>
> Nacked-by: Phillip Potter <[email protected]>
>
> Regards,
> Phil
Hi Phillip,
Thank you for taking time to review my patch.
I will fix the issue with my patch needing previous versions being applied
first.
I had used dev_warn_ratelimited because the checkpatch script mentioned
a sequence of priorities to use various logging functions and
dev_warn_ratelimited had higher priority. But now I have found other issues
with using this function here, so I will switch back to printk_ratelimited.
Let me fix the issues and submit a V3 patch. Thanks again for your time
and kind suggestions.
Regards,
Ghanshyam Agrawal