From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932754AbaHEI7P (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2014 04:59:15 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44081 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932668AbaHEI7N (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2014 04:59:13 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Add the "verbose" module option. From: Jean Delvare To: kreijack@inwind.it Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bryan@whatroute.net In-Reply-To: <53DFBE8D.5050707@inwind.it> References: <1406901650-20841-1-git-send-email-kreijack@inwind.it> <1406901650-20841-4-git-send-email-kreijack@inwind.it> <20140803161223.0b26e4bc@endymion.delvare> <53DE5179.3080402@gmail.com> <20140803175222.3433b646@endymion.delvare> <53DE650E.4060909@gmail.com> <1407141986.4302.10.camel@chaos.site> <53DFBE8D.5050707@inwind.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Organization: Suse Linux Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 10:59:07 +0200 Message-ID: <1407229147.4302.19.camel@chaos.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Le Monday 04 August 2014 à 19:10 +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli a écrit : > On 08/04/2014 10:46 AM, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Le Sunday 03 August 2014 à 18:36 +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli a écrit : > >> The printk without "(tuned %+d)" is never called because > >> LOG_TEMP was #define(d) equal to 0. > > > > And this is what your second printk is replacing. So it should not have > > the "(tuned *)" either. > > > I removed the printk(s) from tune_fan(); the ones leaved replaced > both the ones inside tune_fan() and the ones outside. I understand that. But you still had two final printks, one with "(tuned %+d)" when level >= 0, which corresponds to what was printed in tune_fan before, and another one when level < 0, which corresponds to what was printed in poll_temp before, and that one did not have a "tuned +0" part so I simply fail to see why its replacement should have it. I admit I'm surprised we're arguing on that as it seems really obvious to me, so I can only hope I'm not missing something even more obvious. > Anyway, Benjamin which is your opinion ? > For me is equal to remove or to leave "(tune +0)" (when the tuning is equal to 0). > Jean think it is better to remove "(tune +0)" (when the tuning is equal to 0). > So if you haven't any objection I will remove it. s/remove/not introduce/ is my actual point. But I'm not going to argue more, I'm not even using that driver and it's a debug message only anyway, so do as you wish. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support