On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 09:26:42AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Uwe,
>
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 6:14 PM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Both callers of spi_stop_queue() (i.e. spi_destroy_queue() and
> > spi_controller_suspend()) already emit an error message if
> > spi_stop_queue() fails. Another warning in this case isn't helpful, so
> > drop it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks for your patch, which is now commit 9386c958beb77aee ("spi:
> Drop warning from spi_stop_queue()") in spi/for-next.
>
> > --- a/drivers/spi/spi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi.c
> > @@ -2093,10 +2093,6 @@ static int spi_stop_queue(struct spi_controller *ctlr)
> >
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctlr->queue_lock, flags);
> >
> > - if (ret) {
> > - dev_warn(&ctlr->dev, "could not stop message queue\n");
> > - return ret;
> > - }
> > return ret;
> > }
>
> Why did you decide to remove the printed warning from the callee,
> instead of the multiple printed warnings from the callers?
> The alternative would have reduced kernel size a bit more.
The callers used dev_err, the removed message is a dev_warn. So I kept
the messages with the higher prio.
Also the two error messages are more specific:
spi_destroy_queue()
-> dev_err(&ctlr->dev, "problem destroying queue\n");
spi_controller_suspend()
-> dev_err(&ctlr->dev, "queue stop failed\n");
But I didn't think about size reduction, if you want to improve further,
you're welcome.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
