Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752763AbaKJMSo (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Nov 2014 07:18:44 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:17741 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752512AbaKJMSn (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Nov 2014 07:18:43 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,691,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="486165240" Message-ID: <1415621918.22887.80.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBI: Extend UBI layer debug/messaging capabilities - cosmetics From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com To: Tanya Brokhman Cc: hujianyang@huawei.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , open list Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:18:38 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1415531185-2343-1-git-send-email-tlinder@codeaurora.org> References: <1415531185-2343-1-git-send-email-tlinder@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 (3.10.4-4.fc20) 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 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? > > - 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. > - 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? Artem. -- 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/