On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 11:53:16AM +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> > I used “function(arg1, arg2, …)” at the *beginning* of functions when
> > the arguments passed to the function were included in the message. In
> > all other cases I left it at j
On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> I used “function(arg1, arg2, …)” at the *beginning* of functions when
> the arguments passed to the function were included in the message. In
> all other cases I left it at just “function:” (or just no additional
> prefix). IMO that's a reasonable
On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> We don't need explicit 'CMA:' prefix, since we already define prefix
> 'cma:' in pr_fmt. So remove it.
>
> And, some logs print function name and others doesn't. This looks
> bad to me, so I unify log format to print function name consistently.
>
> Lastly,
>> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>>
>> > We don't need explicit 'CMA:' prefix, since we already define prefix
>> > 'cma:' in pr_fmt. So remove it.
>> >
>> > And, some logs print function name and others doesn't. This looks
>> > bad to me, so I unify log format to print function name consistently.
>> >
>> >
On 06/12/2014 11:21 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> We don't need explicit 'CMA:' prefix, since we already define prefix
> 'cma:' in pr_fmt. So remove it.
>
> And, some logs print function name and others doesn't. This looks
> bad to me, so I unify log format to print function name consistently.
>
> Las
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 02:18:53PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi Joonsoo,
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:21:38PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > We don't need explicit 'CMA:' prefix, since we already define prefix
> > 'cma:' in pr_fmt. So remove it.
> >
> > And, some logs print function name and o
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:11:19AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > We don't need explicit 'CMA:' prefix, since we already define prefix
> > 'cma:' in pr_fmt. So remove it.
> >
> > And, some logs print function name and others doesn't. This looks
> > bad to me, so I unif
Hi Joonsoo,
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:21:38PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> We don't need explicit 'CMA:' prefix, since we already define prefix
> 'cma:' in pr_fmt. So remove it.
>
> And, some logs print function name and others doesn't. This looks
> bad to me, so I unify log format to print funct
Joonsoo Kim writes:
> We don't need explicit 'CMA:' prefix, since we already define prefix
> 'cma:' in pr_fmt. So remove it.
>
> And, some logs print function name and others doesn't. This looks
> bad to me, so I unify log format to print function name consistently.
>
> Lastly, I add one more deb
We don't need explicit 'CMA:' prefix, since we already define prefix
'cma:' in pr_fmt. So remove it.
And, some logs print function name and others doesn't. This looks
bad to me, so I unify log format to print function name consistently.
Lastly, I add one more debug log on cma_activate_area().
Si
10 matches
Mail list logo