On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 12:34 +0800, Cong Wang wrote:Matt Mackall wrote:On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 09:44 +0800, Cong Wang wrote:Matt Mackall wrote:I should probably be more direct: I think that's the wrong thing to do.On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 04:59 -0400, Amerigo Wang wrote:If you mean KERN_INFO, yeah, I want to keep it in the same level+ printk(KERN_INFO "%s: warning: whitespace"Is it a warning or is it info? If it's a warning, then we probably need
+ "is not allowed\n", np->name);
to add "netpoll" or whatever to the message so that people who've got a
warning-level threshold will know what it's about.
as other messages around.
It IS a warning (it even says so!) telling users that something probably
won't work and why and they might miss it if the severity is INFO and
then come and ask us why things aren't working. So use KERN_WARN,
please.
They _are_ working, 0 will be assigned by default.
If this patch has any point at all other than filling the logs, it
should be WARN.
The other messages are INFO because when things are working, they're notThey are not all working, take this as an example:
interesting.
printk(KERN_INFO "%s: couldn't parse config at %s!\n",
np->name, cur);
Yeah, that's obviously wrong too. Let's not add more wrongness just for
consistency's sake.