Jeff, thanks so kindly for cleaning all this up, it must have been very tedious, so extra thanks for it.
I will now quibble about some trivia.... Hans Jeff Mahoney wrote: > ReiserFS warnings can be somewhat inconsistent. > In some cases: > * a unique identifier may be associated with it > * the function name may be included > * the device may be printed separately > > This patch aims to make warnings more consistent. reiserfs_warning() prints > the device name, so printing it a second time is not required. The function > name for a warning is always helpful in debugging, so it is now automatically > inserted into the output. Hans has stated that every warning should have > a unique identifier. Some cases lack them, others really shouldn't have them. > > What cases should not have them? > reiserfs_warning() now expects an id associated with each message. In the > event that it is missing, MISSING_ID is used. In the case where one is simply > not desired, NO_ID is used. Both of these are currently #define'd to NULL, > but may be changed in the future. > >
