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 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/
