On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 10:24 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >> @@ -61,8 +61,10 @@ static int do_read(int fd, void *buf, int size)
> >> if (repipe) {
> >> int retw = write(STDOUT_FILENO, buf, ret);
> >>
> >> - if (retw <= 0 || retw != ret)
> >> - die("repiping input file");
> >> + if (retw <= 0 || retw != ret) {
> >> + pr_debug("repiping input file");
> >
> > Again, why debug and not err?
>
> Well, there's a pr_err() at the caller of top-level trace_report() in
> case of error. So if we use pr_err() there'll be multiple error message
> for one failure and I don't think it's so helpful to normal users. If
> one really wants to know what happens inside, she will set -v to see
> this low-level debug message.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
I haven't looked at the context of all the changes as to where they are
called from. I'm fine if we have a methodology of having pr_err() at the
top level and pr_debug() within the nested code. It looked to me that
the choices were somewhat random, but then again, I was missing context
to the code.
As long as a pr_err() that gives the user enough information to know
what went wrong is displayed, I'm fine with other errors using
pr_debug().
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
