On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 11:47 -0500, Corey Minyard wrote: > On 05/09/2018 10:15 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > > The pr_fmt mechanism exists for pr_<level> logging message prefixing, > > but no similar capability exists for dev_<level> message prefixing. > > > > Many uses of dev_<level> have an embedded prefix for logging output. > > > > So add a similar dev_fmt macro that can automatically prefix the > > dev_<level> logging output. > > > > Rename the existing dev_<level> functions to _dev_<level> and add new > > macros that call _dev_<level> with the desired prefix if defined. > > > > The new default #define for dev_fmt is blank. > > > > Convert ipmi and infiniband to use this mechanism. > > The IPMI changes look good to me. Oh good. > There are some conflicts with a patch I have pulling out the proc > interface that is destined for 3.18. I'm sure you mean 4.18. > I can take the IPMI changes into my tree, if you want. These patches are not at all urgent and were done on top of next-20180509. As there are dependencies between the patch that introduces dev_fmt and the reset of the patches, I think it makes sense to take these as a single patchset rather than take parts into various trees. Respinning the IPMI patches is trivial and can be done whenever appropriate. When do you expect your IPMI patches to hit -next? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
