| Message ID | 2b65bf8d2b4d940cafbafcede07c23c35f042f5a.1659815764.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | vfio/fsl-mc: Fix a typo in a comment | expand |
On Sat, Aug 06 2022, Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> wrote: $SUBJECT: s/comment/message/ > L and S are swapped/ > s/VFIO_FLS_MC/VFIO_FSL_MC/ > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> > --- > All the dev_ logging functions in the file have the "VFIO_FSL_MC: " > prefix. > As they are dev_ function, the driver should already be displayed. > > So, does it make sense or could they be all removed? From a quick glance, there seem to be messages for when the device is _not_ bound to the fsl-mc driver (e.g. in vfio_fsl_mc_bus_notifier()); I'd just fix the typo for now. > --- > drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 09:56:13PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > L and S are swapped/ > s/VFIO_FLS_MC/VFIO_FSL_MC/ > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> > --- > All the dev_ logging functions in the file have the "VFIO_FSL_MC: " > prefix. > As they are dev_ function, the driver should already be displayed. > > So, does it make sense or could they be all removed? > --- > drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c b/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c > index 3feff729f3ce..66d01db1d240 100644 > --- a/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c > +++ b/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static void vfio_fsl_mc_close_device(struct vfio_device *core_vdev) > > if (WARN_ON(ret)) > dev_warn(&mc_cont->dev, > - "VFIO_FLS_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); > + "VFIO_FSL_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); WARN_ON already prints, this is better written as WARN(ret, "VFIO_FSL_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); Jason
Le 09/08/2022 à 18:20, Jason Gunthorpe a écrit : > On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 09:56:13PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote: >> L and S are swapped/ >> s/VFIO_FLS_MC/VFIO_FSL_MC/ >> >> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> >> --- >> All the dev_ logging functions in the file have the "VFIO_FSL_MC: " >> prefix. >> As they are dev_ function, the driver should already be displayed. >> >> So, does it make sense or could they be all removed? >> --- >> drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c b/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c >> index 3feff729f3ce..66d01db1d240 100644 >> --- a/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c >> +++ b/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c >> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static void vfio_fsl_mc_close_device(struct vfio_device *core_vdev) >> >> if (WARN_ON(ret)) >> dev_warn(&mc_cont->dev, >> - "VFIO_FLS_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); >> + "VFIO_FSL_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); > > WARN_ON already prints, this is better written as > > WARN(ret, "VFIO_FSL_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); Or maybe, just: if (ret) dev_warn(&mc_cont->dev, "VFIO_FSL_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); This keep information about the device, avoid the duplicate printing related to WARN_ON+dev_warn and is more in line with error handling in other files. Do you agree or do you prefer a v2 as you proposed with WARN()? CJ > > Jason >
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 05:00:50PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > Le 09/08/2022 à 18:20, Jason Gunthorpe a écrit : > > On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 09:56:13PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > > > L and S are swapped/ > > > s/VFIO_FLS_MC/VFIO_FSL_MC/ > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> > > > --- > > > All the dev_ logging functions in the file have the "VFIO_FSL_MC: " > > > prefix. > > > As they are dev_ function, the driver should already be displayed. > > > > > > So, does it make sense or could they be all removed? > > > --- > > > drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c b/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c > > > index 3feff729f3ce..66d01db1d240 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c > > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c > > > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static void vfio_fsl_mc_close_device(struct vfio_device *core_vdev) > > > if (WARN_ON(ret)) > > > dev_warn(&mc_cont->dev, > > > - "VFIO_FLS_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); > > > + "VFIO_FSL_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); > > > > WARN_ON already prints, this is better written as > > > > WARN(ret, "VFIO_FSL_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); > > Or maybe, just: > if (ret) > dev_warn(&mc_cont->dev, > "VFIO_FSL_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); > > This keep information about the device, avoid the duplicate printing related > to WARN_ON+dev_warn and is more in line with error handling in other files. > > Do you agree or do you prefer a v2 as you proposed with WARN()? If the original author wrote WARN I would not degrade it to just a dev_warn. Jason
On Tue, Aug 16 2022, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 05:00:50PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote: >> Le 09/08/2022 à 18:20, Jason Gunthorpe a écrit : >> > On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 09:56:13PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote: >> > > L and S are swapped/ >> > > s/VFIO_FLS_MC/VFIO_FSL_MC/ >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> >> > > --- >> > > All the dev_ logging functions in the file have the "VFIO_FSL_MC: " >> > > prefix. >> > > As they are dev_ function, the driver should already be displayed. >> > > >> > > So, does it make sense or could they be all removed? >> > > --- >> > > drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c | 2 +- >> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > > >> > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c b/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c >> > > index 3feff729f3ce..66d01db1d240 100644 >> > > --- a/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c >> > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c >> > > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static void vfio_fsl_mc_close_device(struct vfio_device *core_vdev) >> > > if (WARN_ON(ret)) >> > > dev_warn(&mc_cont->dev, >> > > - "VFIO_FLS_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); >> > > + "VFIO_FSL_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); >> > >> > WARN_ON already prints, this is better written as >> > >> > WARN(ret, "VFIO_FSL_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); >> >> Or maybe, just: >> if (ret) >> dev_warn(&mc_cont->dev, >> "VFIO_FSL_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); >> >> This keep information about the device, avoid the duplicate printing related >> to WARN_ON+dev_warn and is more in line with error handling in other files. >> >> Do you agree or do you prefer a v2 as you proposed with WARN()? > > If the original author wrote WARN I would not degrade it to just a > dev_warn. Having to decide between losing the WARN and losing the device info, I'd just... fix the typo :)
diff --git a/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c b/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c index 3feff729f3ce..66d01db1d240 100644 --- a/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c +++ b/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static void vfio_fsl_mc_close_device(struct vfio_device *core_vdev) if (WARN_ON(ret)) dev_warn(&mc_cont->dev, - "VFIO_FLS_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); + "VFIO_FSL_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); vfio_fsl_mc_irqs_cleanup(vdev);
L and S are swapped/ s/VFIO_FLS_MC/VFIO_FSL_MC/ Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> --- All the dev_ logging functions in the file have the "VFIO_FSL_MC: " prefix. As they are dev_ function, the driver should already be displayed. So, does it make sense or could they be all removed? --- drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)