Re: [PATCH] omap2/omapfb: make DBG() more resistant in if-else constructions

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 14:08, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 11:42 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> What about using the standard pr_debug()/dev_dbg() instead?
>> With dynamic debug, it can be enabled at run time.
>> As a bonus, you get printf()-style format checking if debugging is disabled.
>
> Yes, dev_dbg & co. would be better.
>
> However, one thing I dislike about them is the extra stuff they print.
> For example, for omapfb and omapdss dev_dbg will print:
>
> omapfb omapfb: foo
> omapdss_dss omapdss_dss: foo
>
> I originally added the debug macros to omapdss to be able to
> automatically print the DSS module name, as at that point there was only
> one big omapdss device. And I guess I just followed with similar macro
> in omapfb also. But I believe both omapdss and omapfb should be changed
> to dev_* prints sometime soon.

If you don't want the extra baggage, do

        #define pr_fmt(fmt)     KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt

and use pr_debug().

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

            Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
             Â Â -- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/