On 7/14/20 10:17 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:06:05AM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tony,
>>
>> On 7/9/20 11:18 PM, Tony Asleson wrote:
>>> Hi Bartlomiej,
>>>
>>> On 6/24/20 5:35 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>>>> The root source of problem is that libata transport uses different
>>>> naming scheme for ->tdev devices (please see dev_set_name() in
>>>> ata_t{dev,link,port}_add()) than libata core for its logging
>>>> functionality (ata_{dev,link,port}_printk()).
>>>>
>>>> Since libata transport is part of sysfs ABI we should be careful
>>>> to not break it so one idea for solving the issue is to convert
>>>> ata_t{dev,link,port}_add() to use libata logging naming scheme and
>>>> at the same time add sysfs symlinks for the old libata transport
>>>> naming scheme.
>
> Given the age of the current implementation, what suddenly broke that
> requires this to change at this point in time?
Unfortunately when adding libata transport classes (+ at the same
time embedding struct device-s in libata dev/link/port objects) in
the past someone has decided to use different naming scheme than
the one used for standard libata log messages (which use printk()
without any reference to struct device-s in libata dev/link/port
objects).
Now we would like to use dev_printk() for standard libata logging
functionality as this is required for 2 pending patchsets:
- move DPRINTK to dynamic debugging (from Hannes Reinecke)
- add persistent durable identifier storage log messages (from Tony)
but we don't want to change standard libata log messages and
confuse users..
Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
