Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933180Ab3CSROo (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:14:44 -0400 Received: from g4t0016.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.19]:38091 "EHLO g4t0016.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756019Ab3CSROn (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:14:43 -0400 Message-ID: <1363713282.2781.2.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] rbtree_test: use pr_info for module prefix in messages From: Davidlohr Bueso To: Shuah Khan Cc: Andrew Morton , Michel Lespinasse , LKML Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:14:42 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <1363648854.1774.16.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4 (3.4.4-2.fc17) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3470 Lines: 106 On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 10:29 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > This provides nicer message output. Since it seems more appropriate > > for the nature of this module, also use KERN_INFO instead of other > > levels. > > Why are you changing the ALERTs to INFO? Because of the nature of the messages. They don't justify having a KERN_ALERT level (requiring immediate attention), and it seems a lot more suitable to use INFO instead. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso > > --- > > lib/rbtree_test.c | 13 ++++++++----- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/rbtree_test.c b/lib/rbtree_test.c > > index af38aed..66ca26d 100644 > > --- a/lib/rbtree_test.c > > +++ b/lib/rbtree_test.c > > @@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ > > +#define KMSG_COMPONENT "rbtree_test" > > +#define pr_fmt(fmt) KMSG_COMPONENT ": " fmt > > + > > #include > > #include > > #include > > @@ -153,7 +156,7 @@ static int rbtree_test_init(void) > > int i, j; > > cycles_t time1, time2, time; > > > > - printk(KERN_ALERT "rbtree testing"); > > + pr_info("rbtree testing"); > > This is changing the output from KERN_ALERT to KERN_INFO. Why is this > necessary? Should this be pr_alert() instead? > > > > > > prandom_seed_state(&rnd, 3141592653589793238ULL); > > init(); > > @@ -171,7 +174,7 @@ static int rbtree_test_init(void) > > time = time2 - time1; > > > > time = div_u64(time, PERF_LOOPS); > > - printk(" -> %llu cycles\n", (unsigned long long)time); > > + pr_info(" -> %llu cycles\n", (unsigned long long)time); > > > > for (i = 0; i < CHECK_LOOPS; i++) { > > init(); > > @@ -186,7 +189,7 @@ static int rbtree_test_init(void) > > check(0); > > } > > > > - printk(KERN_ALERT "augmented rbtree testing"); > > + pr_info("augmented rbtree testing"); > > This is changing the output from KERN_ALERT to KERN_INFO. Why is this > necessary? Should this be pr_alert() instead? > > > > > init(); > > > > @@ -203,7 +206,7 @@ static int rbtree_test_init(void) > > time = time2 - time1; > > > > time = div_u64(time, PERF_LOOPS); > > - printk(" -> %llu cycles\n", (unsigned long long)time); > > + pr_info(" -> %llu cycles\n", (unsigned long long)time); > > > > for (i = 0; i < CHECK_LOOPS; i++) { > > init(); > > @@ -223,7 +226,7 @@ static int rbtree_test_init(void) > > > > static void rbtree_test_exit(void) > > { > > - printk(KERN_ALERT "test exit\n"); > > + pr_info("test exit\n"); > > This is changing the output from KERN_ALERT to KERN_INFO. Why is this > necessary? Should this be pr_alert() instead? > > > } > > > > module_init(rbtree_test_init) > > -- > > 1.7.11.7 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/