On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 13:10 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > Prefer usage of the macro "pr_err" over the interface "printk".
> > Not correct
> A checkpatch warning like "PREFER_PR_LEVEL" can point additional possibilities out
> for this use case.
> Would you like to introduce any of the higher level logging functions instead?
I think pr_<level> is OK if reworking the code
to support dev_<level> is not easy.
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c
> > []
> > >
> > > @@ -998,11 +998,11 @@ static int ks7010_sdio_probe(struct sdio_func *func,
> > > /* private memory allocate */
> > > netdev = alloc_etherdev(sizeof(*priv));
> > > if (netdev == NULL) {
> > > - printk(KERN_ERR "ks7010 : Unable to alloc new net device\n");
> > > + pr_err(pr_fmt("Unable to alloc new net device\n"));
> > All of these pr_fmt uses are redundant as pr_err already does pr_fmt
> Thanks for your reminder.
>
> Would you accept that another update will be appended to the discussed patch series?
No. Patches should not knowingly introduce defects
that are corrected in follow-on patches.
> > alloc_etherdev already does a dump_stack so the OOM isn't useful.
> Does this information indicate that this printk() (or pr_err()) call
> should be deleted?
Markus, I don't know if it's your lack of English
comprehension or not, but it's fairly obvious from
my reply that this line should be deleted, either
in this patch or a follow-on.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
