From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756469Ab1IRS22 (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:28:28 -0400 Received: from out3.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:60040 "EHLO out3.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755740Ab1IRS21 (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:28:27 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: wuRTVtfaLNK1cYhrQeJ/Y/HjzjSFLQPlKdTtaIjHzz9U 1316370506 Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:27:14 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Randy Dunlap Cc: Jason Baron , Arnd Bergmann , gregkh@suse.de, joe@perches.com, jim.cromie@gmail.com, bvanassche@acm.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, aloisio.almeida@openbossa.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH ] dynamic_debug: call __netdev_printk only for CONFIG_NET Message-ID: <20110918182714.GA32615@kroah.com> References: <5514795fe63ccfd4b3a80283ed04a526abe3c59d.1313085588.git.jbaron@redhat.com> <201109011657.02407.arnd@arndb.de> <20110901151817.GA14324@redhat.com> <20110918082736.GB19444@kroah.com> <4E76288A.4020801@xenotime.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E76288A.4020801@xenotime.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 10:21:14AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 09/18/2011 01:27 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 11:18:18AM -0400, Jason Baron wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 04:57:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >>> __netdev_printk is only defined when CONFIG_NET is set. Since we only need > >>> __dynamic_netdev_dbg for network drivers, we can make it conditional on the > >>> same Kconfig symbol. > >>> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Yes, I've posted a fix for this: > >> > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/30/297 > >> > >> Hopefully, it will be pulled in soon. > > > > As that thread again spun off into confusion, can you please resend the > > end result? > > That spinning confusion had nothing to do with the posted & correct patch > which could have been applied several weeks ago. > > I'm curious: Do you delete most of your email on a routine basis? No, only after going through pending patches do I purge them. And when a series of patches generates a thread like this one, where people are arguing over the way the macros are named, and no one seems to agree, I will take it as the fact that this series was contentious and needs to be resent after taking into consideration the original complaints. For me to keep all email threads, based on the amount of email I get[1], would be ludicrous. greg k-h [1]: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/get_lots_of_email.html