lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c: checkpatch warning
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:14:11AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 04:58:48PM -0700, Chewie Lin wrote:
> > Swap string in the dev_warn() call with __func__ argument, instead of
> > explicitly calling the function name in the string:
> >
> > WARNING: Prefer using "%s", __func__ to embedded function names
> > #417: FILE: main_usb.c:417:
> > + "usb_device_reset fail status=%d\n", status);
> >
> > total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 1058 lines checked
> >
> > And after fix:
> >
> > main_usb.c has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chewie Lin <linsh@oregonstate.edu>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c b/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c
> > index 9e074e9daf4e..71c4511b4cff 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c
> > @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ static void usb_device_reset(struct vnt_private *priv)
> > status = usb_reset_device(priv->usb);
> > if (status)
> > dev_warn(&priv->usb->dev,
> > - "usb_device_reset fail status=%d\n", status);
> > + "%s fail status=%d\n", __func__, status);
>
> But the call that failed was called usb_device_reset(), right? Why is
> this function even needed at all, have the caller call the correct
> function instead please, and then this whole function can be deleted.
>

thanks greg.
Yes, I think that's a good approach as well. I initially wanted to fix a
coding style problem without touching the function calls, but I can
definitely do that as well.

linsh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-04-18 06:47    [W:0.050 / U:46.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site