Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 17:51:06 -0400
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] efi/x86: Use pr_efi_err for error messages
Message-ID: <20200429215106.GE1621173@rani.riverdale.lan>
References: <20200429174120.1497212-1-nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
 <20200429174120.1497212-5-nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
 <f74fe4ad56c0471f863ce550869391c8811f9893.camel@perches.com>
 <CAMj1kXGn70BmapKe=6sA17gMCcWRLCebQJFnyObwRbAefOcEng@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200429214332.GC1621173@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <CAMj1kXEwvtQoWj2GjMzLY+wnaMu9cUP8jRpwuQBC0fpEy31r_w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXEwvtQoWj2GjMzLY+wnaMu9cUP8jRpwuQBC0fpEy31r_w@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:45:17PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 23:43, Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:49:21PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 20:47, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 13:41 -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > > > Use pr_efi_err instead of bare efi_printk for error messages.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps it'd be better to rename pr_efi_err to eri_err
> > > > to it's clearer it's a typical efi_ logging function.
> > > >
> > > > $ git grep -w --name-only pr_efi_err | \
> > > >   xargs sed -i 's/\bpr_efi_err\b/efi_err/g'
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, pr_efi_err() is probably not the best name
> >
> > Should I rename pr_efi/pr_efi_err to, say, efi_pr_info/efi_pr_error?
> 
> If you don't mind spinning another couple of patches, yes, that would
> be helpful.

No problem.

> 
> Let's use efi_pr_info and efi_pr_err to stay aligned with the ordinary
> counterparts

Right, for some reason I thought it was pr_error but it's actually
pr_err.