Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f193.google.com ([209.85.128.193]:34258 "EHLO mail-wr0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753677AbdEJQuk (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 May 2017 12:50:40 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f193.google.com with SMTP id 6so185938wrb.1 for ; Wed, 10 May 2017 09:50:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20170510162546.15439-1-adrian@freebsd.org> From: Adrian Chadd Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 09:50:38 -0700 Message-ID: (sfid-20170510_185043_883988_68D67B85) Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: add configurable debugging. To: Steve deRosier Cc: Kalle Valo , "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" , linux-wireless Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: grr, no. lemme go re-add that and resubmit. thanks! -a On 10 May 2017 at 09:44, Steve deRosier wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/debug.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/debug.h >> index 257d10985c6e..7bd461927029 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/debug.h >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/debug.h >> @@ -200,27 +200,43 @@ void ath10k_sta_update_rx_duration(struct ath10k *ar, >> #endif /* CONFIG_MAC80211_DEBUGFS */ >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_ATH10K_DEBUG >> -__printf(3, 4) void ath10k_dbg(struct ath10k *ar, >> +static inline int >> +_ath10k_do_dbg(struct ath10k *ar, enum ath10k_debug_mask mask) >> +{ >> + if (ar->trace_debug_mask & mask) >> + return (1); >> + if (ar->debug_mask & mask) >> + return (1); >> + return (0); >> +} >> + >> +void _ath10k_dbg(struct ath10k *ar, >> enum ath10k_debug_mask mask, >> const char *fmt, ...); >> -void ath10k_dbg_dump(struct ath10k *ar, >> + >> +void _ath10k_dbg_dump(struct ath10k *ar, >> enum ath10k_debug_mask mask, >> const char *msg, const char *prefix, >> const void *buf, size_t len); >> + >> +#define ath10k_dbg(ar, mask, ...) \ >> + do { \ >> + if (_ath10k_do_dbg(ar, mask)) { \ >> + _ath10k_dbg((ar), (mask), __VA_ARGS__); \ >> + }; \ >> + } while (0) >> + > > Looks to me you dropped the "__printf(3, 4)" safety check. Was that intentional? > > Thanks, > - Steve