Since it is not actually doing a printk - at least, not necessarily - I like lustre_logmsg. lustre_output seems too vague. - Patrick ________________________________________ From: HPDD-discuss [hpdd-discuss-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Joe Perches [joe@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 7:36 PM To: Drokin, Oleg Cc: <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Julia Lawall; <HPDD-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <lustre-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH v4 10/13] staging: lustre: lnet: lnet: checkpatch.pl fixes On Sat, 2015-05-23 at 00:25 +0000, Drokin, Oleg wrote: > On May 22, 2015, at 8:18 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > >>>> I wonder what is more clear about that in your opinion ve > >>>> lustre_error/lustre_debug? > >>> > >>> The fact that you have to explain this shows that it's > >>> at least misleading unless you completely understand the > >>> code. > >> > >> Or you know, you might take the function name at the face value > >> and assume that CERROR means it's an error and CDEBUG means it's a debug message? > > > > Maybe, but I think that it'd be better if the mechanism > > it uses was more plainly named something like lustre_log. > > While the idea seems good, the biggest obstacle here is such that > there's already a thing called lustre log (llog for short too) - > it's kind of a distributed journal of operations. > > Its there a different synonym, I wonder? Maybe: lustre_printk, lustre_logmsg, lustre_output _______________________________________________ HPDD-discuss mailing list HPDD-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/hpdd-discuss _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
