On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 05:16:37PM +0300, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote: >> On 16/08/13 20:45, Greg KH wrote: >> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 08:38:12PM +0300, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Sarah Sharp <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:26:35AM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote: >> >>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 05:17:16PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: >> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 07:04:55PM +0300, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote: >> >>>>>> When debug is not enabled and dev_dbg() will expand to nothing, >> >>>>>> log might be flooded with "callbacks suppressed". If it was not >> >>>>>> done on purpose, better to use dev_dbg_ratelimited() instead. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Kasatkin <[email protected]> >> >>>>>> --- >> >>>>>> drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c | 6 ++---- >> >>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Sarah, does this patch conflict with the trace debug patches being >> >>>>> worked on? I'll hold off on applying it for now, let me know if it's >> >>>>> ok >> >>>>> or not. >> >>>> It doesn't conflict with the trace debug patches, because those only >> >>>> effect debugging with xhci_dbg with the host device, not dev_dbg with >> >>>> the USB device. This should apply fine to usb-next. >> >>> At another glance, the patch removes two if blocks, but doesn't >> >>> re-indent the rest of the lines: >> >>> >> >>>> @@ -3060,8 +3060,7 @@ int xhci_queue_intr_tx(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, >> >>>> gfp_t mem_flags, >> >>>> * to set the polling interval (once the API is added). >> >>>> */ >> >>>> if (xhci_interval != ep_interval) { >> >>>> - if (printk_ratelimit()) >> >>>> - dev_dbg(&urb->dev->dev, "Driver uses different >> >>>> interval" >> >>>> + dev_dbg_ratelimited(&urb->dev->dev, "Driver uses >> >>>> different interval" >> >>>> " (%d microframe%s) than xHCI " >> >>>> "(%d microframe%s)\n", >> >>>> ep_interval, >> >>> That should probably be fixed. >> >> It actually looks correct when patch is applied. >> >> >> >> But it depends what you mean of course. >> >> It looks like it was before: >> >> dev_dbg_ratelimited(&urb->dev->dev, "Driver uses different interval" >> >> " (%d microframe%s) than xHCI " >> >> "(%d microframe%s)\n", >> >> ep_interval, >> >> ep_interval == 1 ? "" : "s", >> >> >> >> Or may be you mean: >> >> dev_dbg_ratelimited(&urb->dev->dev, "Driver uses different interval" >> >> " (%d microframe%s) than xHCI " >> >> "(%d microframe%s)\n", >> >> ep_interval, >> >> ep_interval == 1 ? "" : "s", >> > No, it should look like: >> > >> > dev_dbg_ratelimited(&urb->dev->dev, >> > "Driver uses different interval (%d >> > microframe%s) than xHCI (%d microframe%s)\n", >> > ep_interval, ep_interval == 1 ? "" : "s", >> >> Hello. Sorry I was distracted so much from the kernel. >> >> But putting string to one line make it much over 80 chars. >> Is that considered OK? > > Yes it is. >
Ok. I sent PATCHv2 patches couple of hours ago assuming this. Thanks, Dmitry -- Thanks, Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
