From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752003Ab0EaLHR (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 May 2010 07:07:17 -0400 Received: from www.telegraphics.com.au ([204.15.192.19]:52674 "EHLO mail.telegraphics.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751440Ab0EaLHP (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 May 2010 07:07:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 21:07:09 +1000 (EST) From: fthain@telegraphics.com.au To: Geert Uytterhoeven , David Miller cc: joe@perches.com, p_gortmaker@yahoo.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac8390: change an error return code and some cleanup, take 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20100421.163041.158540277.davem@davemloft.net> <20100531.001947.193703044.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 31 May 2010, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > `pr_debug()' indeed now may generate code if DEBUG is not defined, i.e. > if CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG is enabled. This is intented for debug > infrastructure the user may want to enable later. > > If you want the old behavior, you can use `pr_devel()' instead, which > only generates code if DEBUG is defined. This is intended for debug > infrastructure for developers only. > > However, you used `printk(KERN_DEBUG pr_fmt()...)`, which always > generates code. I'm still not 100% sure that was intentional? Geert, in the beginning, I decided that it should be KERN_DEBUG, not KERN_INFO, and made that change in the first patch submission. I used pr_debug(). Then Joe pointed out that this required DEBUG defined, which I'd forgotten (I didn't know about CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG). So, to retain the old behaviour, while following the example of other usages of ei_debug in lib8390 and drivers, I changed it to printk(KERN_DEBUG ...). Then Joe pointed out that I should take advantage of pr_fmt(), so the third submission made that change. (Then David said I should propagate the return code from request_irq, so I made the present patch submission.) Apparently David now wants me to submit this again -- if (ei_debug) pr_debug(...) David, if that code is acceptable, please let me know. If that code is mandatory, why didn't you say so upon the second patch submission? Alternatively, if the following is preferred (as implied by your last email): if (ei_debug) pr_info(...) Then let me know, and I'll quit bothering you. Or just go ahead and change my patch if you wish to save us both some time. Finn > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert