On 9-3-2017 9:09, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On 08-03-17 21:44, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8-3-2017 18:53, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 17:57 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> And hello back to you.
>>
>> Also hello.
>>
>>>> On 08-03-17 17:34, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 09:23 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>>>> Using pr_err for things which are not errors is a bad idea. E.g. it
>>>>>> will cause the plymouth bootsplash screen to drop back to the text
>>>>>> console so that the user can see the error, which is not what we
>>>>>> normally want to happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead add a new brcmf_info macro and use that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>>>> -Fix brcm_err typo (should be brcmf_err) in CONFIG_BRCM_TRACING case
>>>>>> Changes in v3:
>>>>>> -Use do { } while (0) around macro
>>>>>
>>>>> why? Single statement macros do not need a do/while
>>>>
>>>> Because Arend ask me to during review of v2.
>>>
>>> Well, maybe Arend should learn that single statement macros
>>> don't need do/while guards and that do/while guards are
>>> generally not used in the kernel for single statements.
>>
>> Always good to learn from an expert. The intent behind my remark was to
>> follow the same pattern as brcmf_err for the sake of consistency. I was
>> not clear.
>
> Ok, so what is it going to be, are we going to keep this as is
> with the do .. while added or shall I do a v4 dropping it again?
Sorry, Hans
My bad. Let's stick with v3 and I will do a follow-up patch.
Regards,
Arend
> Regards,
>
> Hans
