From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jg1.han@samsung.com (Jingoo Han) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 13:54:22 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: kernel: use seq_puts() instead of seq_printf() In-Reply-To: <20140128155156.GC24617@arm.com> References: <001d01cf1bc9$452569d0$cf703d70$%han@samsung.com> <001f01cf1bc9$57767070$06635150$%han@samsung.com> <20140128155156.GC24617@arm.com> Message-ID: <001201cf1cae$2d60ce80$88226b80$%han@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:52 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:36:18AM +0000, Jingoo Han wrote: > > For a constant format without additional arguments, use seq_puts() > > instead of seq_printf(). Also, it fixes the following checkpatch > > warning. > > > > WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf > > > > Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han > > --- > > arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > index c8e9eff..4507691 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > @@ -416,7 +416,7 @@ static int c_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) > > seq_printf(m, "%s ", hwcap_str[i]); > > > > seq_printf(m, "\nCPU implementer\t: 0x%02x\n", read_cpuid_id() >> 24); > > - seq_printf(m, "CPU architecture: AArch64\n"); > > + seq_puts(m, "CPU architecture: AArch64\n"); > > seq_printf(m, "CPU variant\t: 0x%x\n", (read_cpuid_id() >> 20) & 15); > > seq_printf(m, "CPU part\t: 0x%03x\n", (read_cpuid_id() >> 4) & 0xfff); > > seq_printf(m, "CPU revision\t: %d\n", read_cpuid_id() & 15); > > Just ignore the checkpatch warning. I prefer the consistency of > seq_printf() in this function. (+cc Joe Perches, Dan Carpenter) Personally, I don't like the checkpatch warning. However, I respect your opinion on the consistency. Thank you for your comment. Best regards, Jingoo Han