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;
Date:   Thu, 27 Feb 2020 09:31:44 +1100 (AEDT)
From:   Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>
To:     Greg Ungerer <gerg@linux-m68k.org>
cc:     afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>,
        linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/18] m68k: Replace setup_irq() by request_irq()
In-Reply-To: <a682c89d-baf2-3d3c-647f-a07b2a146c9f@linux-m68k.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.22.394.2002270908380.8@nippy.intranet>
References: <cover.1582471508.git.afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com> <00b0bf964278dd0bb3e093283994399ff796cca5.1582471508.git.afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com> <73c3ad08-963d-fea2-91d7-b06e4ef8d3ef@linux-m68k.org> <alpine.LNX.2.22.394.2002261151220.9@nippy.intranet>
 <caa5686a-5be3-5848-fdee-36f54237ccb6@linux-m68k.org> <alpine.LNX.2.22.394.2002261637400.8@nippy.intranet> <a682c89d-baf2-3d3c-647f-a07b2a146c9f@linux-m68k.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020, Greg Ungerer wrote:

> On 26/2/20 4:39 pm, Finn Thain wrote:
> > 
> > If -EBUSY means the end user has misconfigured something, printing
> > "request_irq failed" would be helpful. But does that still happen?
> 
> I have seen it many times. Its not at all difficult to get interrupt 
> assignments wrong, duplicated, or otherwise mistaken when creating 
> device trees. Not so much m68k/coldfire platforms where they are most 
> commonly hard coded.
> 

I was thinking of end users and production builds. You seem to be 
concerned about developers. Catering to developers argues for pr_debug() 
here, if anything.

You say you've seen -16 errors "many times". Have you also seen -22? Did 
the ability to distinguish these values help you to fix your device tree?

> > ...
> > 
> > BTW, one of the benefits of "%s: request_irq failed" is that a 
> > compilation unit with multiple request_irq calls permits the compiler 
> > to coalesce all duplicated format strings. Whereas, that's not 
> > possible with "foo: request_irq failed" and "bar: request_irq failed".
> 
> Given the wide variety of message text used with failed request_irq() 
> calls it would be shear luck that this matched anything else. A quick 
> grep shows that "%s: request_irq() failed\n" has no other exact matches 
> in the current kernel source.
> 

You are overlooking the patches in this series that produce multiple 
identical format strings.

And the present lack of consistency isn't a great argument for more 
inconsistency IMO.