Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Reply-To: minyard@acm.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] treewide: Add and use dev_fmt similar to pr_fmt
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
        linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
References: <cover.1525878372.git.joe@perches.com>
 <4a397208-bd6c-a6c3-c161-4de8579ca17e@gmail.com>
 <ee5a0e0065047cd4d1da340f6ee924f3a31b0fac.camel@perches.com>
From:   Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org>
Message-ID: <b6809bcb-f86a-df50-5a79-ad0b86d12f05@acm.org>
Date:   Wed, 9 May 2018 12:22:46 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ee5a0e0065047cd4d1da340f6ee924f3a31b0fac.camel@perches.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 05/09/2018 12:04 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 11:47 -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
>> On 05/09/2018 10:15 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> The pr_fmt mechanism exists for pr_<level> logging message prefixing,
>>> but no similar capability exists for dev_<level> message prefixing.
>>>
>>> Many uses of dev_<level> have an embedded prefix for logging output.
>>>
>>> So add a similar dev_fmt macro that can automatically prefix the
>>> dev_<level> logging output.
>>>
>>> Rename the existing dev_<level> functions to _dev_<level> and add new
>>> macros that call _dev_<level> with the desired prefix if defined.
>>>
>>> The new default #define for dev_fmt is blank.
>>>
>>> Convert ipmi and infiniband to use this mechanism.
>> The IPMI changes look good to me.
> Oh good.
>
>> There are some conflicts with a patch I have pulling out the proc
>> interface that is destined for 3.18.
> I'm sure you mean 4.18.

Oops, yes :).  I was just looking at a 3.x kernel and it stuck in my brain.

>> I can take the IPMI changes into my tree, if you want.
> These patches are not at all urgent and were done
> on top of next-20180509.
>
> As there are dependencies between the patch that
> introduces dev_fmt and the reset of the patches,
> I think it makes sense to take these as a single
> patchset rather than take parts into various trees.

The dependency isn't hard, the changes work without dev_fmt,
it just won't print the prefix.  But I'm fine with you keeping
them.

>
> Respinning the IPMI patches is trivial and can be
> done whenever appropriate.
>
> When do you expect your IPMI patches to hit -next?
>
I went ahead and pulled it in now, it's been tested well enough
in my tree.

For patches 3, 4, and 5:

Acked-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com>