From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756507Ab1IRSmR (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:42:17 -0400 Received: from oproxy3-pub.bluehost.com ([69.89.21.8]:50950 "HELO oproxy3-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756136Ab1IRSmQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:42:16 -0400 Message-ID: <4E763B84.80009@xenotime.net> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:42:12 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap Organization: YPO4 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.22) Gecko/20110907 SUSE/3.1.14 Thunderbird/3.1.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH 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 References: <5514795fe63ccfd4b3a80283ed04a526abe3c59d.1313085588.git.jbaron@redhat.com> <201109011657.02407.arnd@arndb.de> <20110901151817.GA14324@redhat.com> <20110918082736.GB19444@kroah.com> <4E76288A.4020801@xenotime.net> <20110918182714.GA32615@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20110918182714.GA32615@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1807:box742.bluehost.com:xenotime:xenotime.net} {sentby:smtp auth 50.53.38.135 authed with rdunlap@xenotime.net} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/18/2011 11:27 AM, Greg KH wrote: > 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. Sheesh. The naming of the macros has nothing to do with this build fix. > 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 -- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***