Richard Dawe <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :
> >3 - If PFX is included, we'll have a mix of printk and dprintk. My personal
> > taste would be to not include it in the definition of the macro.
> I'll go with Jeff here, which is that "PFX should only be used in probe
> I think I did that for consistency with another printk that was split
> across lines.
They were split when they could not fit on a single line. OTOH I did not
hunt them when they were already there.
> >Use dprintk ?
> Original dprintk or the DPRINTK used in my patch? If you mean DPRINTK,
> then it wouldn't work, because DPRINTK includes dev->name. At this point
> in the code, dev->name is not defined.
> Perhaps I could modifying DPRINTK (*) to use dev->name if defined,
> otherwise fall back on PFX.
I would put the smallest amount of things behind dprintk() so it can be
used anywhere (for consistency): no PFX, no dev->name.
Thanks for your work.