On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 08:56:02PM +0000, Phillip Potter wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 01:08:43PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 09, 2022 at 09:54:23PM +0000, Phillip Potter wrote:
> > > Convert the DBG_88E macro calls in core/rtw_iol.c to use pr_debug
> > > or netdev_dbg appropriately, as their information may be useful to
> > > observers, and this gets the driver closer to the point of being
> > > able to remove DBG_88E itself.
> > >
> > > Some calls are at points in the call chain where use of dev_dbg or
> > > netdev_dbg isn't possible due to lack of device pointer, so plain
> > > pr_debug is appropriate here.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Phillip Potter <phil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_iol.c | 10 ++++++----
> > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_iol.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_iol.c
> > > index 7e78b47c1284..923da2a9f6ae 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_iol.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_iol.c
> > > @@ -12,13 +12,15 @@ struct xmit_frame *rtw_IOL_accquire_xmit_frame(struct adapter *adapter)
> > >
> > > xmit_frame = rtw_alloc_xmitframe(pxmitpriv);
> > > if (!xmit_frame) {
> > > - DBG_88E("%s rtw_alloc_xmitframe return null\n", __func__);
> > > + netdev_dbg(adapter->pnetdev,
> > > + "rtw_alloc_xmitframe return null\n");
> >
> > You're going to have to send this anyway because of the compile issue.
> >
> > I feel like you are not being aggressive enough in the debug messages
> > that you delete. For example, this one should definitely be deleted.
> > Don't print an error message for alloc failures.
> >
> > It would be easier to Ack a mass delete of these messages.
> >
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
> >
>
> Dear Dan,
>
> Thank you for your feedback. I already sent a V2 series to fix the empty case
> label I left in core/rtw_mlme_ext.c, sounds like a V3 is needed though
> based on this feedback - admittedly I have tried to be conservative and
> basically only removed commented DBG_88E calls or calls which just print the
> function name/line number so far.
Yeah. I saw v3. It's fine. I'm not really trying to nak your patches.
>
> I get what you're saying about deleting them all just being easier,
> but I've already converted several in previous series that have
> made it in. It would make sense to delete these converted calls as well
> if going for the total deletion approach. Also, I do worry some of the
> info could be useful. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.
>
> I am happy to delete it all by all means, just want to make sure majority
> would be happy with that approach, as opposed to a refinement of this
> approach and being more judicious with deletion of more DBG_88E calls.
In the original code DBG_88E was kind of an error level severity message
not a debug level severity. Of course, you had to use a module option
to turn on any output at all so it's hard to judge how that works in
real life. By making them debug level severity, you've basically
deleted them already... Don't be a hoarder.
Once you change it to dev_dbg() then it becomes more difficult
emotionally to do a mass delete.
There is a real value to just deleting stuff.
regards,
dan carpenter
