On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:42:57PM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> Hi Phillip,
>
> On 2/16/22 04:06, Phillip Potter wrote:
> > Remove all the smaller sets of dev_dbg/netdev_dbg/pr_debug calls that
> > were previously converted from DBG_88E. After some thought, it makes
> > more sense to just entirely strip all of these calls, so that debugging
> > code in the driver can be more consistent and useful going forwards.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Phillip Potter <phil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> [code snip]
>
> > @@ -468,9 +440,6 @@ void update_bmc_sta(struct adapter *padapter)
> > arg = psta->mac_id & 0x1f;
> > arg |= BIT(7);
> > tx_ra_bitmap |= ((raid << 28) & 0xf0000000);
> > - netdev_dbg(padapter->pnetdev,
> > - "mask = 0x%x, arg = 0x%x\n",
> > - tx_ra_bitmap, arg);
> > /* bitmap[0:27] = tx_rate_bitmap */
> > /* bitmap[28:31]= Rate Adaptive id */
> > @@ -489,7 +458,6 @@ void update_bmc_sta(struct adapter *padapter)
> > spin_unlock_bh(&psta->lock);
> > } else {
> > - netdev_dbg(padapter->pnetdev, "add_RATid_bmc_sta error!\n");
> > }
>
> else branch can be dropped completelly
These are fixed in patch 12. I asked Phillip to do it this way because
it makes it easier to review if we don't have to look at formatting
changes. Normally we'd do it the way that you're suggesting but this
patch is pretty hard to review if we have to look at formating changes
as well. It's harder just because it's so large.
When I'm reviewing these patches I'm trying to think is there anything
we are deleting by mistake? It's pretty common delete extra lines. The
other thing I'm reviewing for is if there are malicious people adding
stuff we don't want. I've never seen that, but I always look for it.
So this patchset is much easier to review this way.
regards,
dan carpenter
