On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 14:57 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:

On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 15:50 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Joe Perches [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 15:37 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

quoted

    PNP0C01:00: new device for \_SB_.PCI0.ISA_.MBIO

I fiddled with this a while ago; it would look something like this:

[]

quoted

+static noinline_for_stack
+char *acpi_name_string(char *buf, char *end, acpi_handle handle,
+                    struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt)

[]

quoted

Yes.  I'm hesitant about this approach in general, because I don't
think printing the ACPI path is something we should be doing often.
It's not like a struct resource or a MAC address, where there are
dozens or hundreds of users.  I really think we should only print ACPI
paths in one or two places, so adding a %p extension would waste a
letter and encourage the wrong behavior.

I don't much care for adding ACPI specific calls to vsprintf
as acpi is supposed to be OS generic anyway.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Toshi's approach.
Anyone that looks for speed in a logging message is looking
for an oddly fitting thing.  Tracing sure, but logging?

Fully agreed!  One cannot use printk in performance path.

Thanks,
-Toshi

I also don't see anything wrong with renaming it to just
acpi_<level>, but that's a different discussion.

cheers, Joe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/