On 06/28/2017 12:57 AM, Hirokazu Honda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> According to patch work, this patch are not approved yet and its
> status are "Changes Requested."
> What changes are necessary actually?
> If there is no necessary change, can you approve this patch?
I was considering to have more fine grai
Hi,
According to patch work, this patch are not approved yet and its
status are "Changes Requested."
What changes are necessary actually?
If there is no necessary change, can you approve this patch?
Best,
Hirokazu Honda
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-08 at
On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 14:24 +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> > If there automated systems that rely on specific levels, then
> > changing the levels of individual messages could also cause
> > those automated systems to fail.
>
> Well, that might
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 13:39 +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Hirokazu Honda wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I completely understand bitmask method now.
>> > I agree to the idea, but it is necessary to change the specifica
On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 13:39 +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Hirokazu Honda wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I completely understand bitmask method now.
> > I agree to the idea, but it is necessary to change the specification of
> > a debug parameter.
> > (We probably need to c
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Hirokazu Honda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I completely understand bitmask method now.
> I agree to the idea, but it is necessary to change the specification of
> a debug parameter.
> (We probably need to change a document about that?)
> For example, there is maybe a user wh
Hi,
I completely understand bitmask method now.
I agree to the idea, but it is necessary to change the specification of
a debug parameter.
(We probably need to change a document about that?)
For example, there is maybe a user who set a debug parameter 3.
The user assume that logs whose levels are
On 31/05/17 06:06, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 12:28 +0900, Hirokazu Honda wrote:
>> If I understand a bitmap correctly, it is necessary to change the log level
>> for each message.
>> I didn't mean a bitmap will take a long CPU time.
>> I mean the work to change so takes a long time
On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 12:28 +0900, Hirokazu Honda wrote:
> If I understand a bitmap correctly, it is necessary to change the log level
> for each message.
> I didn't mean a bitmap will take a long CPU time.
> I mean the work to change so takes a long time.
No, none of the messages or levels need c
On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 11:05 +0900, Hirokazu Honda wrote:
> Although bitmap is useful, there is need to change the log level for each
> log.
> Because it will take a longer time, it should be done in another patch.
I have no idea what you mean.
A bit & comparison is typically an identical instruct
On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 18:49 +0900, Hirokazu Honda wrote:
> Some debug output whose log level is set 1 flooded the log.
> Their log level is lowered to find the important log easily.
Maybe use pr_debug instead?
Perhaps it would be better to change the level to a bitmap
so these can be more individ
Some debug output whose log level is set 1 flooded the log.
Their log level is lowered to find the important log easily.
Signed-off-by: Hirokazu Honda
---
drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c | 10 +-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-co
12 matches
Mail list logo
