From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-path: <linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from perches-mx.perches.com ([206.117.179.246]:59660 "EHLO
	labridge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755591Ab2EPVL5 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 16 May 2012 17:11:57 -0400
Message-ID: <1337202716.10019.23.camel@joe2Laptop> (sfid-20120516_231200_942226_5482B742)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] iwlwifi: add __printf argument checking
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 14:11:56 -0700
In-Reply-To: <1337202227.18519.19.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
References: <1337200851-20469-1-git-send-email-johannes@sipsolutions.net>
	 <1337200851-20469-4-git-send-email-johannes@sipsolutions.net>
	 <1337201904.10019.21.camel@joe2Laptop>
	 (sfid-20120516_225829_821547_833CA746) <1337202227.18519.19.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-wireless.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 23:03 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 13:58 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> 
> > > Change-Id: I7a2ffcd3f625ff29c65519b0c3d474bace884f9d
> > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
> > > Reviewed-on: http://git-mwg.jer.intel.com/gerrit/2022
> > > Tested-by: Jenkins
> > > Reviewed-by: Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
> > 
> > Trivial comments:
> > 
> > Odd Reviewed-on: and Tested-by: lines.
> > The intel.com link does not resolve here too.
> 
> Meh, second time I've messed this up... It's not supposed to, so I guess
> that's good. I'll send a new version of this.
> 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-debug.h b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-debug.h
> > []
> > > @@ -38,10 +38,10 @@ static inline bool iwl_have_debug_level(u32 level)
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  void __iwl_err(struct device *dev, bool rfkill_prefix, bool only_trace,
> > > -		const char *fmt, ...);
> > > -void __iwl_warn(struct device *dev, const char *fmt, ...);
> > > -void __iwl_info(struct device *dev, const char *fmt, ...);
> > > -void __iwl_crit(struct device *dev, const char *fmt, ...);
> > > +		const char *fmt, ...) __printf(4, 5);
> > > +void __iwl_warn(struct device *dev, const char *fmt, ...) __printf(2, 3);
> > > +void __iwl_info(struct device *dev, const char *fmt, ...) __printf(2, 3);
> > > +void __iwl_crit(struct device *dev, const char *fmt, ...) __printf(2, 3);
> > 
> > As far as I know, there are very few in-kernel uses of
> > __printf after the function prototype (6 out of 183).
> > 
> > $ git grep -E "\b__printf\s*\(\s*\w+\s*,\s*\w+\s*\)\s*;" | wc -l
> > 6
> > $ git grep -E "\b__printf\s*\(\s*\w+\s*,\s*\w+\s*\)" | wc -l
> > 183
> > 
> > I'd prefer to keep the __printf before the return type.
> 
> Well, maybe now it's 3 more? :-)

Hope not.

You noticed you _have_ to put it before the function
on the static inlines so why not keep it there in all
cases?