[lustre-devel] [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH v4 10/13] staging: lustre: lnet: lnet: checkpatch.pl fixes
paf at cray.com
Fri May 22 20:13:42 PDT 2015
Since it is not actually doing a printk - at least, not necessarily - I like lustre_logmsg. lustre_output seems too vague.
From: HPDD-discuss [hpdd-discuss-bounces at lists.01.org] on behalf of Joe Perches [joe at perches.com]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 7:36 PM
To: Drokin, Oleg
Cc: <devel at driverdev.osuosl.org>; <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>; <kernel-janitors at vger.kernel.org>; <linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org>; Julia Lawall; <HPDD-discuss at ml01.01.org>; <lustre-devel at 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 at lists.01.org
More information about the lustre-devel