[PATCH 2/6] lib/list_sort: test: use more reasonable printk levels

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Artem Bityutskiy
Date: Saturday, August 7, 2010 - 1:10 am

From: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>

I do not see any reason to use KERN_WARN for normal messages
and KERN_EMERG for error messages in the lib_sort testing routine.
Let's use more reasonable KERN_NORM and KERN_ERR levels.

Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
---
 lib/list_sort.c |   16 ++++++++--------
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/list_sort.c b/lib/list_sort.c
index 9dd8d4a..e0c2ccb 100644
--- a/lib/list_sort.c
+++ b/lib/list_sort.c
@@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ static int __init list_sort_test(void)
 	struct list_head *head = kmalloc(sizeof(*head), GFP_KERNEL);
 	struct list_head *cur;
 
-	printk(KERN_WARNING "testing list_sort()\n");
+	printk(KERN_DEBUG "testing list_sort()\n");
 
 	cur = head;
 	for (i = 0; i < LIST_SORT_TEST_LENGTH; i++) {
@@ -189,17 +189,17 @@ static int __init list_sort_test(void)
 		struct debug_el *el = container_of(cur, struct debug_el, l_h);
 		int cmp_result = cmp(NULL, cur, cur->next);
 		if (cur->next->prev != cur) {
-			printk(KERN_EMERG "list_sort() returned "
-						"a corrupted list!\n");
+			printk(KERN_ERR "list_sort() returned "
+					"a corrupted list!\n");
 			return 1;
 		} else if (cmp_result > 0) {
-			printk(KERN_EMERG "list_sort() failed to sort!\n");
+			printk(KERN_ERR "list_sort() failed to sort!\n");
 			return 1;
 		} else if (cmp_result == 0 &&
 				el->serial >= container_of(cur->next,
 					struct debug_el, l_h)->serial) {
-			printk(KERN_EMERG "list_sort() failed to preserve order"
-						 " of equivalent elements!\n");
+			printk(KERN_ERR "list_sort() failed to preserve order "
+					"of equivalent elements!\n");
 			return 1;
 		}
 		kfree(cur->prev);
@@ -207,8 +207,8 @@ static int __init list_sort_test(void)
 	}
 	kfree(cur);
 	if (count != LIST_SORT_TEST_LENGTH) {
-		printk(KERN_EMERG "list_sort() returned list of"
-						"different length!\n");
+		printk(KERN_ERR "list_sort() returned list of "
+				"different length!\n");
 		return 1;
 	}
 	return 0;
-- 
1.7.1.1

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH 0/6] improve list_sort test, Artem Bityutskiy, (Sat Aug 7, 1:10 am)
[PATCH 2/6] lib/list_sort: test: use more reasonable print ..., Artem Bityutskiy, (Sat Aug 7, 1:10 am)
[PATCH 3/6] lib/list_sort: test: use generic random32, Artem Bityutskiy, (Sat Aug 7, 1:10 am)
[PATCH 4/6] lib/list_sort: test: improve errors handling, Artem Bityutskiy, (Sat Aug 7, 1:10 am)
[PATCH 5/6] lib/list_sort: test: unify test messages, Artem Bityutskiy, (Sat Aug 7, 1:10 am)
[PATCH 6/6] lib/list_sort: test: check element addresses, Artem Bityutskiy, (Sat Aug 7, 1:10 am)
Re: [PATCH 0/6] improve list_sort test, Artem Bityutskiy, (Sun Aug 8, 3:03 am)
Re: [PATCH 0/6] improve list_sort test, Don Mullis, (Sun Aug 8, 12:31 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/6] improve list_sort test, Don Mullis, (Sun Aug 8, 1:07 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/6] improve list_sort test, Artem Bityutskiy, (Sun Aug 8, 10:59 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/6] improve list_sort test, Artem Bityutskiy, (Sat Aug 21, 2:32 am)
Re: [PATCH 0/6] improve list_sort test, Artem Bityutskiy, (Sat Aug 21, 2:56 am)
Re: [PATCH 0/6] improve list_sort test, Artem Bityutskiy, (Sat Aug 21, 3:03 am)
Re: [PATCH 0/6] improve list_sort test, Artem Bityutskiy, (Sat Aug 21, 3:22 am)
Re: [PATCH 0/6] improve list_sort test, don.mullis, (Sat Aug 21, 9:59 am)
Re: [PATCH 0/6] improve list_sort test, Artem Bityutskiy, (Sat Aug 21, 10:48 am)