On 2010-10-27 23:23, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 23:00 +0200, Benny Halevy wrote: >> On 2010-10-27 22:17, Fred Isaman wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Benny Halevy <bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 2010-10-27 21:49, Fred Isaman wrote: >>>>> The change to printk was in response to Trond's complaint about >>>>> successive dprintks. >>>>> >>>>> Instead, the following would work: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4filelayout.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4filelayout.c >>>>> index 5f52e6f..2ce393c 100644 >>>>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4filelayout.c >>>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4filelayout.c >>>>> @@ -585,7 +585,8 @@ filelayout_commit(struct nfs_write_data *data, int sync) >>>>> } >>>> >>>> If we're going this way, the ifdebug could cover the following >>>> printout as well... >>>> >>> >>> Did you mean preceding printout? By the way - the complaint about >> >> Yeah, preceding the call to print_ds (following my comment :) >> >>> successive dprintks was regarding >>> print_ds_list repeatedly calling print_ds, which at the time used dprintk. >> >> Why do we care to optimize the debug case so much? >> print_ds_list is already calling print_ds inside ifdebug(FACILITY) >> so the common, non-debug case is optimized correctly. I.e. we don't >> repeatedly check the debug flag normally. > > It's not about optimizing the debug case. It's about avoiding having to > check ifdebug(FACILITY) all the time when we're _not_ debugging. Right, and so we do, as the whole loop in print_ds_list is enclosed in ifdebug(FACILITY). Benny > > Trond > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
