Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH v4 10/13] staging: lustre: lnet: lnet: checkpatch.pl fixes
Since it is not actually doing a printk - at least, not necessarily - I like
lustre_logmsg. lustre_output seems too vague.
- Patrick
________________________________________
From: HPDD-discuss [hpdd-discuss-bounces(a)lists.01.org] on behalf of Joe Perches
[joe(a)perches.com]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 7:36 PM
To: Drokin, Oleg
Cc: <devel(a)driverdev.osuosl.org>; <gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org>;
<kernel-janitors(a)vger.kernel.org>; <linux-kernel(a)vger.kernel.org>; Julia
Lawall; <HPDD-discuss(a)ml01.01.org>; <lustre-devel(a)lists.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH v4 10/13] staging: lustre: lnet: lnet: checkpatch.pl
fixes
On Sat, 2015-05-23 at 00:25 +0000, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
On May 22, 2015, at 8:18 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>> I wonder what is more clear about that in your opinion ve
>>>> lustre_error/lustre_debug?
>>>
>>> The fact that you have to explain this shows that it's
>>> at least misleading unless you completely understand the
>>> code.
>>
>> Or you know, you might take the function name at the face value
>> and assume that CERROR means it's an error and CDEBUG means it's a debug
message?
>
> Maybe, but I think that it'd be better if the mechanism
> it uses was more plainly named something like lustre_log.
While the idea seems good, the biggest obstacle here is such that
there's already a thing called lustre log (llog for short too) -
it's kind of a distributed journal of operations.
Its there a different synonym, I wonder?
Maybe: lustre_printk, lustre_logmsg, lustre_output
_______________________________________________
HPDD-discuss mailing list
HPDD-discuss(a)lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/hpdd-discuss