Re: [RFC PATCH v3 5/8] ata_dev_printk: Use dev_printk

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>]

On 7/17/20 9:47 PM, Tony Asleson wrote:
> On 7/17/20 5:27 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>>
>> On 7/17/20 12:06 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>
>>> Just use the device name and don't worry about it, I doubt anyone will
>>> notice, unless the name is _really_ different.
>>
>> Well, Geert has noticed and complained pretty quickly:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ide/alpine.DEB.2.21.2003241414490.21582@ramsan.of.borg/
>>
>> Anyway, I don't insist that hard on keeping the old names and
>> I won't be the one handling potential bug-reports.. (added Jens to Cc:).
> 
> I would think having sysfs use one naming convention and the logging
> using another would be confusing for users, but apparently they've
> managed this long with that.
> 
> 
> It appears changes are being rejected because of logging content
> differences, implying we shouldn't be changing printk usage to dev_printk.
> 
> Should I re-work my changes to support dev_printk path in addition to
> utilizing printk_emit functionality so that we can avoid user space

Unfortunately this won't fix the issue for Hannes' patchset.

> visible log changes?  I don't see a way to make the transition from
> printk to dev_printk without having user visible changes to message content.
The usage of sysfs symlinks for fixing the naming issue turned out
to not be (easily) possible so we should consider other options (or
just go forward with the original dev_printk() conversion)..

Jens?

Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics