Hi Geert,
(thanks for adding Joe to Cc:, I noticed that when I wanted to add him
myself :-)
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 11:32:21AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
2011/12/17 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Using pr_crit in an header results in funny messages. Consider
#define pr_fmt(fmt) "mydriver: " fmt
#include <linux/hardirq.h>
which makes the message from ack_bad_irq
mydriver: unexpected IRQ trap...
so better use plain printk with KERN_CRIT directly.
Yep, that's expected behavior, as defining pr_fmt() modifies all kernel messages
generated from that module.
I'm aware it is expected, I only wondered if it is also desirable to
have messages in headers modified depending on the module the header is
included in.
This fixes a build problem on m68k with aufs3 en passant because the
latter builds with
ccflags-y += -D'pr_fmt(fmt)=AUFS_NAME"\040%s:%d:%s[%d]:\040"fmt,__func__,__LINE__,current->comm,current->pid'
without providing AUFS_NAME early enough for ack_bad_irq (which is the
problem of aufs).
Isn't this a problem with (out of tree) aufs?
Why does it put a define that relies on an (apparently sometimes still
undefined)
variable on the build command line?
This is definitily a bug in aufs that needs fixing independant of the
issue of using or not using pr_... in headers.
Any header may contain calls to pr_*().
Cc: Thorsten Glaser <tg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/m68k/include/asm/hardirq.h | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/m68k/include/asm/hardirq.h b/arch/m68k/include/asm/hardirq.h
index db30ed2..1f652e0 100644
--- a/arch/m68k/include/asm/hardirq.h
+++ b/arch/m68k/include/asm/hardirq.h
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
static inline void ack_bad_irq(unsigned int irq)
{
- pr_crit("unexpected IRQ trap at vector %02x\n", irq);
+ printk(KERN_CRIT "unexpected IRQ trap at vector %02x\n", irq);
Nack. Nowadays pr_crit(...) is recommended over "printk(KERN_CRIT ...)".
I know that, I just wonder if the proponents of this recommendation are
aware of the issue when using pr_* in headers. Joe?
Besides, there are (albeit not that many yet) other callers of pr_*() in
header files. Do you plan to revert them to printk(), too?
That depends on the outcome of this discussion.
Please fix aufs instead. Thanks!
I already provided a patch for that, too. (Currently only on the Debian
kernel ML.)
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
