Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] DMA, CMA: clean-up log message

2014-06-15 Thread Joonsoo Kim
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

Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] DMA, CMA: clean-up log message

2014-06-12 Thread Michal Nazarewicz
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

Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] DMA, CMA: clean-up log message

2014-06-12 Thread Michal Nazarewicz
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,

Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] DMA, CMA: clean-up log message

2014-06-12 Thread Michal Nazarewicz
>> 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. >> > >> >

Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] DMA, CMA: clean-up log message

2014-06-12 Thread Zhang Yanfei
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

Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] DMA, CMA: clean-up log message

2014-06-11 Thread Joonsoo Kim
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

Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] DMA, CMA: clean-up log message

2014-06-11 Thread Joonsoo Kim
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

Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] DMA, CMA: clean-up log message

2014-06-11 Thread Minchan Kim
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

Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] DMA, CMA: clean-up log message

2014-06-11 Thread Aneesh Kumar K.V
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

[PATCH v2 01/10] DMA, CMA: clean-up log message

2014-06-11 Thread Joonsoo Kim
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