Return-path: Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:27331 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757199Ab2ENSb0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 May 2012 14:31:26 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 11:31:24 -0700 From: "Pedersen, Thomas" To: Kalle Valo CC: Joe Perches , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ath6kl: enable enhanced bmiss detection Message-ID: <20120514183124.GA4057@pista> (sfid-20120514_203130_769558_36071A45) 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <4FB14A4D.1030002@qca.qualcomm.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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()? Thomas