On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 03:51:58PM -0700, matt mooney wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 01:54:16AM -0700, matt mooney wrote:
> >> This switches all of the non dev_<level> print statements to use the
> >> pr_<level> macros. And a few debug statements are removed.
> >
> > Can't most of these be moved to use the dev_* calls instead?
>
> I believe so and had planned to do this is in a second pass.
Ah, you didn't say that :)
> >> Signed-off-by: matt mooney <mfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/staging/usbip/stub_dev.c | 22 ++--
> >> drivers/staging/usbip/stub_main.c | 19 ++--
> >> drivers/staging/usbip/stub_rx.c | 24 ++--
> >> drivers/staging/usbip/stub_tx.c | 16 ++--
> >> drivers/staging/usbip/usbip_common.c | 228 +++++++++++++++------------------
> >> drivers/staging/usbip/usbip_common.h | 46 +------
> >> drivers/staging/usbip/usbip_event.c | 3 +-
> >> drivers/staging/usbip/vhci_hcd.c | 87 +++++--------
> >> drivers/staging/usbip/vhci_rx.c | 33 +++---
> >> drivers/staging/usbip/vhci_sysfs.c | 14 +-
> >> drivers/staging/usbip/vhci_tx.c | 8 +-
> >> 11 files changed, 209 insertions(+), 291 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/usbip/stub_dev.c b/drivers/staging/usbip/stub_dev.c
> >> index c71d0a3..0c0d838 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/staging/usbip/stub_dev.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/staging/usbip/stub_dev.c
> >> @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ static void stub_shutdown_connection(struct usbip_device *ud)
> >> * step 1?
> >> */
> >> if (ud->tcp_socket) {
> >> - usbip_udbg("shutdown tcp_socket %p\n", ud->tcp_socket);
> >> + pr_debug("shutdown tcp_socket %p\n", ud->tcp_socket);
> >
> > Like here, we have a valid struct device pointer from what I can tell,
> > so we should use dev_dbg() instead of pr_debug().
> >
> > I think a lot of these conversions could use those calls here, right?
> >
> > So care to split this into 2 patches, one that converts to valid usages
> > of the dev_* calls, and the other a patch that converts the rest to pr_*
> > calls?
>
> Do you mind just taking this as is for now? That way I can do the
> dev_dbg() conversion on a case by case basis as I become more familiar
> with the code, which was kind of my original plan. This patch still
> provides a fair amount of cleanup ;)
Yes it does, but I would prefer if you did it right the first time.
It's neater that way and makes more sense.
So, can you please redo this and resend it?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
