On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 17:46 -0700, Henry Ptasinski wrote: > On 05/18/2011 05:32 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 15:45 -0700, Henry Ptasinski wrote: > >> On 05/18/2011 11:23 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > >>> All uses of DHD_<TYPE> macros are for debugging only. > >>> Change the multiple uses of DHD_<TYPE>((...)) to dhd_dbg(TYPE, ...) > >>> for a more consistent style. > >> I generally like this approach, but in brcmsmac we've been switching to > >> wiphy_err() and related instead. Any strong argument for one over the > >> other? > > These aren't described as errors but are debugging messages. > Yes, so wiphy_debug(), wiphy_info(), wiphy_notice(), etc could be used. True. I think debugging messages should not have message levels promoted without cause. > > Not all uses use __func__. > That's just sloppiness on our part. They should all be consistent. > > I think __func__ unnecessary and it should be avoided. > If it's moved into the macro, then there's only one place to change if > you want to delete "__func__"/add it back/include it conditionally. [] > "brcm_dbg()" seems fine to me. I'll fix these and resubmit. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
