Dear Borislav,
Am 14.04.22 um 12:15 schrieb Borislav Petkov:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 10:56:43AM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
No idea, why you had to ask this question, while you statement before
already made the point.
You've told Medad one thing. I told him the complete opposite.
When? I must have missed your comment then?
Medad as new submitter gets confused. And I don't want patch
submitters to get confused by review.
So, if you're unsure about a review feedback, don't give it pls.
Also during review errors can happen, can’t they? I apologized, and then
you for catching it.
Sorry I do not get your point. Would you elaborate on the debug message so
it’s more useful?
Just think of the big picture: is my error message useful enough for
debugging or would I have to go and add more info to it so that I can
debug an issue?
Example:
There is
edac_dbg(3, "InterruptStatus : 0x%x\n", intr_status);
now.
Now, how about this?
edac_dbg(3, "dev: %s, id: %s: IRQ: %d, interrupt status: 0x%x\n",
mci->dev_name, mci->ctl_name, irq, intr_status);
Which one, do you think, is more helpful to a person trying to debug any
potential issue with the interrupt handler and the ECCs it is supposed
to issue?
I am all for more elaborate log messages, but have the feeling, you
think I am not? Where does the misunderstanding come from?
Kind regards,
Paul
