Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Jim Keniston wrote:
> > Jeff Garzik wrote:
> ...
> >>A separate "NETIF_MSG_ALL" test is not needed, because msg_enable is a
> >>bitmask. A msg_enable of 0xffffffff will naturally create a NETIF_MSG_ALL.
> >
> >
> > But how do you code a netdev_* call where you ALWAYS want the message
> > (including
> > netdev_printk-style prefix) logged, regardless of the value of msg_enable?
> > That's
> > what NETIF_MSG_ALL is for (and why it might be better called
> > NETIF_MSG_ALWAYS)...
>
> I understand the purpose of NETIF_MSG_ALL; re-read what I said. You
> don't need a separate _test_, as your implementation includes. Defining
> NETIF_MSG_ALL to 0xffffffff will naturally create the effect you seek.
>
So the test becomes
if (netdev->msg_enable & msglevel) { /* log message */ }
If netdev->msg_enable == 0, the message is suppressed even if msglevel ==
NETIF_MSG_ALL.
I had intended that "ALL" would override the msg_enable setting (even 0), but
we can do
it this way as well.
> ...
>
> Jeff
Jim
|
