2012-05-12 15:57:14

by Steven Liu

Subject: [PATCH] ext4: fix the code style from printk to ext_debug in extents.c

Hi Ted,

just fix the printk debug to ext_debug, if undefined the EXT_DEBUG
it will not output the debug message

Signed-off-by: LiuQi <[email protected]>
---
fs/ext4/extents.c | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index abcdeab..211e230 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
@@ -548,10 +548,10 @@ ext4_ext_binsearch_idx(struct inode *inode,
for (k = 0; k < le16_to_cpu(eh->eh_entries); k++, ix++) {
if (k != 0 &&
le32_to_cpu(ix->ei_block) <= le32_to_cpu(ix[-1].ei_block)) {
- printk(KERN_DEBUG "k=%d, ix=0x%p, "
+ ext_debug("k=%d, ix=0x%p, "
"first=0x%p\n", k,
ix, EXT_FIRST_INDEX(eh));
- printk(KERN_DEBUG "%u <= %u\n",
+ ext_debug("%u <= %u\n",
le32_to_cpu(ix->ei_block),
le32_to_cpu(ix[-1].ei_block));
}
--
1.7.1



Best Regards

2012-05-13 04:20:10

by Theodore Ts'o

Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix the code style from printk to ext_debug in extents.c

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:57:13PM +0800, Steven Liu wrote:
> Hi Ted,
>
> just fix the printk debug to ext_debug, if undefined the EXT_DEBUG
> it will not output the debug message
>
> Signed-off-by: LiuQi <[email protected]>

I'm not sure what's the point? The code in question is all under a
CHECK_BINSEARCH, which is in itself a debugging option.

- Ted

2012-05-13 14:38:25

by Steven Liu

Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix the code style from printk to ext_debug in extents.c

Hi ,
You mean ,if open the CHECK_BINSEARCH, it must output the message
which I have changed code?

Thanks

2012/5/13 Ted Ts'o <[email protected]>:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:57:13PM +0800, Steven Liu wrote:
>> Hi Ted,
>>
>> just fix the printk debug to ext_debug, if undefined the EXT_DEBUG
>> it will not output the debug message
>>
>> Signed-off-by: LiuQi <[email protected]>
>
> I'm not sure what's the point? ?The code in question is all under a
> CHECK_BINSEARCH, which is in itself a debugging option.
>
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?- Ted