Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231122161304.12434-1-ghanshyam1898@gmail.com> <ZWEj5sDUs83qn0pc@equinox>
In-Reply-To: <ZWEj5sDUs83qn0pc@equinox>
From:   Ghanshyam Agrawal <ghanshyam1898@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 25 Nov 2023 12:42:26 +0530
Message-ID: <CAG-BmodoZyi50XK-pQ=YPZ-q6BLKCbwSpck7jn=dgRsXVQxUwA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] media: stk1160: Fixed high volume of stk1160_dbg messages
To:     Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>
Cc:     ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar, mchehab@kernel.org,
        linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        skhan@linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 4:00=E2=80=AFAM Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.=
uk> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 09:43:04PM +0530, Ghanshyam Agrawal wrote:
> > The function stk1160_dbg gets called too many times, which causes
> > the output to get flooded with messages. Since stk1160_dbg uses
> > printk, it is now replaced with dev_warn_ratelimited.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>
> > Signed-off-by: Ghanshyam Agrawal <ghanshyam1898@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > Thanks for your suggestions Phillip. I have updated the TODO comment an=
d
> > used dev_warn_ratelimited for inclusion of kernel warning.
> >
> >  drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c b/drivers/media/=
usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c
>
> Hi Ghanshyam,
>
> Thank you for the patch, but it is sadly incorrect.
>
> You have created this V2 against a tree including the V1 version of your
> patch. A V2 patch should apply cleanly against the source tree, with no
> previous version first needing to be applied.
>
> On another note, why are you using dev_warn_ratelimited here, and if
> there's a good reason, why not use it for the other callsites in this
> function? (Genuine question here, I've not studied the difference).
>
> Please create a V3, many thanks.
>
> Nacked-by: Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>
>
> Regards,
> Phil

Hi Phillip,

Thank you for taking time to review my patch.

I will fix the issue with my patch needing previous versions being applied
first.

I had used dev_warn_ratelimited because the checkpatch script mentioned
a sequence of priorities to use various logging functions and
dev_warn_ratelimited had higher priority. But now I have found other issues
with using this function here, so I will switch back to printk_ratelimited.

Let me fix the issues and submit a V3 patch. Thanks again for your time
and kind suggestions.

Regards,
Ghanshyam Agrawal