Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce FW_INFO* functions and messages

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 11:30 +0000, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Dec, at 07:22:57PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > The other part I noticed about this particular patchset is that it's
> > not really "firmware" as such, but specifically PC wiht ACPI that
> > gets covered here. So rather than generalizing the code, another
> > option would be to narrow down the scope and make it
> > acpi_{warn,info,dbg} instead.
> 
> Making this specific to ACPI runs the risk of people introducing a
> multitude of new logging functions for every subsystem, e.g.
> efi_{warn,info,dbg}.

There are many subsystem specific logging functions:

$ grep -rP --include=*.[ch] -oh "\b[a-z_]+_warn\b\s*\(" *| \
  sed -r 's/\s*//g'|sort|uniq -c|sort -rn|head -25
   3808 dev_warn(
   1964 pr_warn(
    468 netdev_warn(
    194 xfs_warn(
    120 xhci_warn(
    102 ipoib_warn(
     76 netif_warn(
     64 tuner_warn(
     53 hid_warn(
     51 ata_dev_warn(
     46 mthca_warn(
     45 nv_warn(
     41 ubi_warn(
     32 wiphy_warn(
     32 osm_warn(
     31 rbd_warn(
     28 ubifs_warn(
     27 psmouse_warn(
     27 e_warn(
     25 blogic_warn(
     23 en_warn(
     23 ata_link_warn(
     22 jfs_warn(
     21 csio_warn(
     21 cam_warn(

> FWIW, I'd be interested in using something like this patch series to
> properly log EFI implementation bugs. The logging for EFI is currently
> done fairly haphazardly.

I thought that was the point of embedding the existing
FW_INFO, FW_WARN and FW_BUG #defines in formats.

Using logging message scraping to find faults is not
a great approach as message content is subject to change.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/