On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 11:42 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
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.
Why or when is that inappropriate?
I only wondered if it is also desirable to
have messages in headers modified depending on the module the header is
included in.
[]
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?
I believe it to be a feature rather than a defect.
For instance: commit 256ee435b9a9ee9cca69602fe8046b27ca99fbee
netdevice: Convert printk to pr_info in netif_tx_stop_queue
This allows any caller to be prefaced by any specific
pr_fmt to better identify which device driver is using
this function inappropriately.
cheers, Joe
--
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
