Hi Wolfgang,
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Sam,
>
> In message
> you
> wrote:
>>
>> Does this series look ok to you? Can you please review?
>
> Sorry for the delay.
>
> Hm... I wonder if we should handle patch 1/2 in the same way as done
> in 2/2, i. e. not
Hi Yaniv,
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Yaniv Levinsky
wrote:
> On 07/20/2018 06:18 PM, Sam Protsenko wrote:
>> This patch series intended to make boot log better. Basically here we
>> just remove unwanted error messages, relying on the message from most
>> deep API to be printed (like mmc
Dear Sam,
In message
you wrote:
>
> Does this series look ok to you? Can you please review?
Sorry for the delay.
Hm... I wonder if we should handle patch 1/2 in the same way as done
in 2/2, i. e. not remove the printf() in the error case, but turn it
into a debug() ?
Best regards,
Wolfgang
On 07/20/2018 06:18 PM, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> This patch series intended to make boot log better. Basically here we
> just remove unwanted error messages, relying on the message from most
> deep API to be printed (like mmc subsystem). At the moment this looks
> like most clean solution to
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Sam Protsenko
wrote:
> This patch series intended to make boot log better. Basically here we
> just remove unwanted error messages, relying on the message from most
> deep API to be printed (like mmc subsystem). At the moment this looks
> like most clean solution
This patch series intended to make boot log better. Basically here we
just remove unwanted error messages, relying on the message from most
deep API to be printed (like mmc subsystem). At the moment this looks
like most clean solution to cluttered log problem, as any other solution
will be
6 matches
Mail list logo
