On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Dan Carpenter
<dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It takes a long time to review this, not because it's hard but because
> I have to look at each line and think "Is this really a worthwhile line
> to keep?" and a lot of them are marginal but perhaps not necessarily
> bad?
I see. I though if they were there, it might be useful traces for
somebody in any kind of way :-).
>
> You've deleted some obviously rubbish printks but I feel you could have
> gone much further. That would be an easy patch to review if it just
> deleted printks. Maybe say [PATCH 1/2] delete stuff. [PATCH 2/2] Use
> netdev_*.
>
I'll review these changes in the way you are saying and resend a new
patchset with this fixed.
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 07:42:22AM +0100, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
>> @@ -767,20 +753,20 @@ static int ks7010_upload_firmware(struct ks_sdio_card *card)
>>
>> static void ks7010_card_init(struct ks_wlan_private *priv)
>> {
>> - DPRINTK(5, "\ncard_init_task()\n");
>> + netdev_dbg(priv->net_dev, "\ncard_init_task()\n");
>>
>
> This one is obviously useless. We already have ftrace to tell use when
> functions are called. And also the \n at the start is wrong because
> it messes up the dmesg log levels.
Agreed. Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
Best regards,
Sergio Paracuellos
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
