From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out2.uio.no ([129.240.10.58]:46599 "EHLO mail-out2.uio.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753792Ab0J0Vc5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:32:57 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] SQUASHME: pnfs: filelayout: print_ds should use dprintk From: Trond Myklebust To: Benny Halevy Cc: Fred Isaman , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4CC899B7.3080904@panasas.com> References: <4CC86D96.8020803@panasas.com> <1288203860-26920-1-git-send-email-bhalevy@panasas.com> <4CC8863B.3080504@panasas.com> <4CC892E1.3070703@panasas.com> <1288214583.13431.19.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <4CC899B7.3080904@panasas.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:32:51 -0400 Message-ID: <1288215171.13431.20.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 23:29 +0200, Benny Halevy wrote: > On 2010-10-27 23:23, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 23:00 +0200, Benny Halevy wrote: > >> On 2010-10-27 22:17, Fred Isaman wrote: > >>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Benny Halevy wrote: > >>>> On 2010-10-27 21:49, Fred Isaman wrote: > >>>>> The change to printk was in response to Trond's complaint about > >>>>> successive dprintks. > >>>>> > >>>>> Instead, the following would work: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4filelayout.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4filelayout.c > >>>>> index 5f52e6f..2ce393c 100644 > >>>>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4filelayout.c > >>>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4filelayout.c > >>>>> @@ -585,7 +585,8 @@ filelayout_commit(struct nfs_write_data *data, int sync) > >>>>> } > >>>> > >>>> If we're going this way, the ifdebug could cover the following > >>>> printout as well... > >>>> > >>> > >>> Did you mean preceding printout? By the way - the complaint about > >> > >> Yeah, preceding the call to print_ds (following my comment :) > >> > >>> successive dprintks was regarding > >>> print_ds_list repeatedly calling print_ds, which at the time used dprintk. > >> > >> Why do we care to optimize the debug case so much? > >> print_ds_list is already calling print_ds inside ifdebug(FACILITY) > >> so the common, non-debug case is optimized correctly. I.e. we don't > >> repeatedly check the debug flag normally. > > > > It's not about optimizing the debug case. It's about avoiding having to > > check ifdebug(FACILITY) all the time when we're _not_ debugging. > > Right, and so we do, as the whole loop in print_ds_list is enclosed > in ifdebug(FACILITY). In that case, I agree: the whole thing can be converted to use ordinary printks... Trond