On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:50:39AM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>
> 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..
All of that mess with symlinks just for a common debug printk? That
seems excessive :)
Just use the device name and don't worry about it, I doubt anyone will
notice, unless the name is _really_ different.
thanks,
greg k-h
