Return-path: Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:9217 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755528Ab2EOE2h (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2012 00:28:37 -0400 Message-ID: <4FB1DB6A.8080303@qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20120515_062847_120900_9B2D6538) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 07:28:26 +0300 From: Kalle Valo MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Pedersen, Thomas" CC: Joe Perches , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ath6kl: enable enhanced bmiss detection References: <1337017652-3962-1-git-send-email-c_tpeder@qca.qualcomm.com> <1337018219.29436.24.camel@joe2Laptop> <20120514180339.GA4030@pista> <4FB14A4D.1030002@qca.qualcomm.com> <20120514183124.GA4057@pista> In-Reply-To: <20120514183124.GA4057@pista> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/14/2012 09:31 PM, Pedersen, Thomas wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:09:17PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: >> On 05/14/2012 09:03 PM, Pedersen, Thomas wrote: >>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:56:59AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >>> >>>> Why 2 messages when 1 message might do? >>>> >>>> err = ath6kl_wmi_sta_bmiss_enhance_cmd(vif->ar->wmi, >>>> vif->fw_vif_idx, enable); >>>> ath6kl_dbg(ATH6KL_DBG_WLAN_CFG, >>>> "%s enhanced fw bmiss detection: %s\n", >>>> enable ? "enable" : "disable", >>>> err ? "OK" : "failed"); >>> >>> OK that seems nicer. Should we still print the error code, or maybe it >>> doesn't really matter? >> >> I missed this in the original review, but it's actually better to not >> use ath6kl_dbg() for error messages. They are more difficult to notice >> that way. >> >> Or did you have a specific reason for using ath6kl_dbg()? > > No, you're right. However, if we consolidate these messages they will > both be under ath6kl_dbg() or ath6kl_err(), and neither one would be > correct. > > How about just keeping these separate and printing the error through > ath6kl_err()? Sounds good to me. And if you can, try to print the error value in ath6kl_err(). Kalle