On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 18:28 -0700, david@xxxxxxx wrote: > On Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Ted Ts'o wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:44:10AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > >> This stuff ain't whitespace. > >>> I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. For ext4, as far as I am > > concerned, changing printk(KERN_INFO, ...) to pr_info(...) is *purely* > > a whitespace-level change. > Joe, if everything did change, what difference would it make? Hi David. > just being a consistant style doesn't matter much, Perhaps we disagree on the value of consistency. I believe it's a small but measurable effect and it can reduce overall ongoing defect rates. Is it DoublePlus_important_? No, definitely not. To me using pr_<level> is a bit like using const or marking sections devinitconst. It hardly matters, but it's good form and it can free up some working memory in ram limited systems. > but if there is some > functionality that would be possible with pr_info(...) that would not be > possible with printk(KERN_INFO, ...), there may be more reason to change. Right now, it's just macros over printk so it's pretty trivial. I do intend to convert pr_<level> macros to functions eventually to reduce code size ~.5% overall. That reduction does depend on quantity of CONFIG_<FOO> options enabled of course. Enable everything, I think it's ~.01%. I haven't done it in quite awhile though so that's a guess. It matters a tiny bit more for flash or ram limited systems. Some driver optimizations like the rtlwifi reduction in -next commit 481b9606ec might have more of an impact though for those systems. So, it depends... cheers, Joe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
