Jeff Mahoney wrote: > Hans Reiser wrote: > > >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? > > > I don't think that "routine" messages should have identifiers associated > with them. I guess in a more exact sense, messages that are directly > associated with user input, like mount option parsing, finding the > superblock, an unfinished reiserfsck, or enabling CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK.
I disagree, please don't remove identifiers. > > I guess a quick visual search for NO_ID in the patch would be the best > way of expressing this. I could be convinced otherwise, and that's why I > made two separate #defines for a missing id or deliberately no id. > > -Jeff > > -- > Jeff Mahoney > SuSE Labs
