Re: staging: ks7010: Replace three printk() calls by pr_err()

[SF Markus Elfring]

> I think pr_<level> is OK if reworking the code
> to support dev_<level> is not easy.

Thanks for this explanation. - It sounds more constructive than the previous short
feedback "Not correct".


>> Would you accept that another update will be appended to the discussed patch series?
> 
> No.  Patches should not knowingly introduce defects
> that are corrected in follow-on patches.

This view is fine in principle.

I am just curious on the preferred sequence to fix the affected implementation details.

1. I imagine that my questionable update suggestion "[PATCH v2 08/10] staging: ks7010:
   Replace three printk() calls by pr_err()" can be skipped and the remaining logging
   calls will be improved somehow a bit later.

Or:

2. Do you want a resend of this whole patch series?


>>> alloc_etherdev already does a dump_stack so the OOM isn't useful.
>> Does this information indicate that this printk() (or pr_err()) call
>> should be deleted?
> 
> Markus, I don't know if it's your lack of English
> comprehension or not, but it's fairly obvious from
> my reply that this line should be deleted,

I was unsure if this view fits to a consensus also by other developers.

It might be that I can occasionally become picky to check if other contributors
insist on the usage of a specific error message.


> either in this patch or a follow-on.

I would prefer another addition (or source code clean-up) later.
Could it happen that so many error messages are update candidates (for deletion)
so that no places remain where a pr_err() call would make sense in this
software module?

Regards,
Markus