On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 10:34:20PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
> John W. Linville wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 04:37:08PM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> >
> >>>@@ -257,7 +263,11 @@ void bcm43xx_leds_update(struct bcm43xx_
> >>> continue;
> >>> #endif /* CONFIG_BCM43XX_DEBUG */
> >>> default:
> >>>- assert(0);
> >>>+ if (bcm43xx_max_led_err) {
> >>>+ printkl(KERN_INFO PFX "Bad value in
> >>>leds_update,"
> >>>+ " led->behaviour: 0x%x\n",
> >>>led->behaviour);
> >>>+ --bcm43xx_max_led_err;
> >>>+ }
> >>I'd call this message bloat. ;) This is the first time the assertion
> >>triggers since it was added.
> >>You could instead remove the assert(), remove bcm43xx_max_led_err
> >>and use dprintkl instead of printkl.
>
> I disagree with part of Michael's comments. I think we should have a
> dprintk, rather than dprintkl, so that we get printouts from all four of
> the sprom values. That way the user will be able to report the numbers we
> need. As this would not limit the log entries and potentially generate
> thousands, there should be a variable like bcm43xx_max_led_err to limit the
> number of log entries.
>
> I will propose a new patch once I get the data for the second case. In the
> meantime, the patch you have pushed upstream will fix the BCM4303 led
> assertions.
OK, cool. I'm happy for you to send another patch.
John
--
John W. Linville
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
