On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:09:17PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > On 05/14/2012 09:03 PM, Pedersen, Thomas wrote: > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:56:59AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > >> Why 2 messages when 1 message might do? > >> > >> err = ath6kl_wmi_sta_bmiss_enhance_cmd(vif->ar->wmi, > >> vif->fw_vif_idx, enable); > >> ath6kl_dbg(ATH6KL_DBG_WLAN_CFG, > >> "%s enhanced fw bmiss detection: %s\n", > >> enable ? "enable" : "disable", > >> err ? "OK" : "failed"); > > > > OK that seems nicer. Should we still print the error code, or maybe it > > doesn't really matter? > > I missed this in the original review, but it's actually better to not > use ath6kl_dbg() for error messages. They are more difficult to notice > that way. > > Or did you have a specific reason for using ath6kl_dbg()? No, you're right. However, if we consolidate these messages they will both be under ath6kl_dbg() or ath6kl_err(), and neither one would be correct. How about just keeping these separate and printing the error through ath6kl_err()? Thomas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
