On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Tanya Brokhman <tlinder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/10/2014 2:18 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: >> >> On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 13:06 +0200, Tanya Brokhman wrote: >>> >>> >>> /* Normal UBI messages */ >>> #define ubi_msg(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_notice("UBI-%d: %s:" fmt "\n", \ >>> - ubi->ubi_num, __func__, >>> ##__VA_ARGS__) >>> + (ubi ? ubi->ubi_num : UBI_MAX_DEVICES), \ >>> + __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__) >>> /* UBI warning messages */ >>> #define ubi_warn(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_warn("UBI-%d warning: %s: " fmt >>> "\n", \ >>> - ubi->ubi_num, __func__, >>> ##__VA_ARGS__) >>> + (ubi ? ubi->ubi_num : UBI_MAX_DEVICES), \ >>> + __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__) >>> /* UBI error messages */ >>> #define ubi_err(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_err("UBI-%d error: %s: " fmt "\n", \ >>> - ubi->ubi_num, __func__, >>> ##__VA_ARGS__) >>> + (ubi ? ubi->ubi_num : UBI_MAX_DEVICES), \ >>> + __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__) >> >> >> Why did you make these changes? It is preferable to not add another 'if' >> statement to this macro to handle one or 2 cases - much bloat, little >> gain. >> >> Could we please avoid this? > > > I just wanted to be on the safe side and prevent this macro being called > with ubi=NULL that may crash the system. If you still prefer the "if" > removed will do. > >> >>> >>> - if (!ubi->free.rb_node || (ubi->free_count - ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs < >>> 1)) { >>> - ubi_warn(ubi, "Can't get peb for fastmap:anchor=%d, >>> free_cnt=%d, reserved=%d", >>> - anchor, ubi->free_count, ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs); >>> + if (!ubi->free.rb_node || (ubi->free_count - ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs < >>> 1)) >>> goto out; >> >> >> The warning looks pretty poor, so I do not mind to remove it, but I >> thought your patch is about adding a parameter, but you mix different >> kinds of things there. Please, be stricter to the similar UBIFS patch >> which you was going to send. > > > Now I'm confused. I added this msg as part of the patch you already pushed > to your branch but later you requested NOT to add additional msgs and if > required add it in a different patch. So this was added by me and now > removed by me - as per your request. Why do you need that new warning anyways? It was added by "UBI: Extend UBI layer debug/messaging capabilities". >> >> >>> - if (kthread_should_stop()) { >>> - ubi_msg(ubi, "background thread \"%s\" should >>> stop, PID %d", >>> - ubi->bgt_name, task_pid_nr(current)); >>> + if (kthread_should_stop()) >>> break; >>> - } >> >> >> How about just turning this into a debug message, not removing? > > > Same here. Removing this because *you* requested it. > Quoting you from V5: > "Yes, please, remove these messages or turn them into debugging messages. > And yes, these should have been added in a separate patch." > >> >> Artem. >> > > > Thanks, > Tanya Brokhman > -- > Qualcomm Israel, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, > a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- Thanks, //richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html