On 02/23/2014 11:43 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 20 February 2014 23:10, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Well, except that still leaves a bunch of errors in the kernel log, and >> I have to remember to ignore them:-/ > > Just for few releases, before this patchset goes in. > >> It'd be nice if the cpufreq core didn't keep changing its behaviour and >> adding new error prints. It really should be up to the cpufreq drivers >> to log the errors if they experience any. > > Hmm... not sure.. Its better to do error prints at a single place, i.e. cpufreq > core on behalf of all drivers. If there is a error being returned from some > routine, we better print a message for that. Rather than living in the illusion > that everything is fine :) As a general rule, I think it's better to report the error right where it happened. That's the only place where the code knows exactly what the error was. Further up the call stack, we have to guess why there was an error from the return code, which isn't very much information. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
