Re: [PATCH -v2 3/3] ACPI, APEI, report GHES error information via printk

Huang Ying
2010-11-30T06:20:29Z

On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 13:47 +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 11:07 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:51:41 +0800 Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > > +static void ghes_print_estatus(const char *pfx, struct ghes *ghes)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (pfx == NULL) {
> > > > + if (ghes_severity(ghes->estatus->error_severity) <=
> > > > + GHES_SEV_CORRECTED)
> > > > + pfx = KERN_WARNING HW_ERR;
> > > > + else
> > > > + pfx = KERN_ERR HW_ERR;
> > > > + }
> > > > + if (printk_ratelimit()) {
> > > > + printk(
> > > > + "%s""Hardware error from APEI Generic Hardware Error Source: %d\n",
> > > > + pfx, ghes->generic->header.source_id);
> > > > + apei_estatus_print(pfx, ghes->estatus);
> > >
> > > That code layout is just ghastly. Please, if it can't be done nicely
> > > in 80-cols then simply exceed the 80 cols.
> >
> > Just for printk, I think sometimes it may be helpful to put the "format"
> > string at a new line in source code. Because it may be helpful to check
> > whether the resulting string from printk fits 80 cols.
>
> No. please reconsider why all other persons don't do that.
> It's beyond ugly.

I think that "why other persons don't/do do that" is not good reasoning.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying