[lustre-devel] [PATCH 21/24] lustre: move remainder of linux-tracefile.c to tracefile.c

[James Simmons]

> >> On Thu, Jun 21 2018, James Simmons wrote:
> >> 
> >> >> It's good to keep related code together.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb at suse.com>
> >> >
> >> > Nak. For some reason this corrupts my dmesg output. Its really strange and
> >> > I haven't figured it out yet.
> >> 
> >> This patch cannot possibly be the cause of any such behavioural change.
> >> It purely moves code from one file to another, it doesn't change the
> >> code at all.
> >
> > In a way you are correct. What this patch does is expose how badly messed
> > up cfs_print_to_console() is. Originally it was a printk() call but some
> > newbie changed it incorrectly into a pr_info() for all cases. This is 
> > totally incorrect but it landed anyways :-( For some bizarre reason it
> > works even with it being completely wrong.
> 
> I see the problem with cfs_print_to_console().  It chooses a message
> type (KERN_EMERG, KERN_ERR, KERN_WARNING, KERN_INFO) then uses pr_info()
> to print that, which adds another KERN_INFO.
> However vprintk_emit() calls printk_get_level() repeatedly while it
> succeeds, so the extra KERNE_INFO is ignored.
> 
> So while the code is strange and should use printk(), I don't see
> how it could mess up your dmesg output.
> 
> >                                              I did fix this patch up 
> > and redid the later patches due the changes from the fix up.  Is it 
> > okay it I push the newer version of these patches with my changes?
> 
> I'm not really sure what you are asking here, but the answer is probably 
> "yes, it is okay".

Pushed the updated patches. Sorry I wasn't clear on what I was asking.
I was weird stuff like Lustre: LNet6: .....
Well in any case the pushed patch set cleans all that mess up.