Re: [PATCH] jfs: Convert jfs_error to jfs_sb_err

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Tue, 2013-06-04 at 11:00 -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> I generally like this cleanup except for one thing.
> 
> On 06/04/2013 12:22 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Use a more current logging style.
> > 
> > Rename function jfs_error to jfs_sb_err.
> 
> Why the rename? If you're going to rename it, the new name should be
> more descriptive, such as jfs_report_and_handle_error(), but I don't
> like that because it's too long. jfs_error() is similiar to ext4_error()
> or btrfs_error(). I don't understand the name change.

Pick a name.  I don't much care what it is really.

This one takes a super_block * and emits a logging message
so I chose jfs_sb_err to try to describe the sb * bit.

I like the _err suffix is a bit better than the
_error suffix as it's a bit more name consistent
with other kernel logging mechanisms like dev_err,
pr_err, etc, but if you want to remain consistent
with other fs/,,, fine by me.

I think the other fs _error names are sub-optimal.

These functions are a bit overloaded too when
CONFIG_PRINTK is not enabled.  The format and args
still exist in code and I believe can not be
optimized away by the compiler

I think using macro or an in-place expansion to
separate the 2 parts of the reporting and then the
handling of of the error would be better as it
would allow smaller embedded use.

> > Add __printf format and argument verification.
> 
> good

I submitted a patch a few years ago to do that too.
Dunno what happened to it,

> > Remove embedded function names from formats.
> > Add %pf, __builtin_return_address(0) to jfs_sb_err.
> 
> I like this.

It also reduces stack needs a bit by removing that
256 byte temp buffer.