From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: joe@perches.com (Joe Perches)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 21:00:50 -0800
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: kernel: use seq_puts() instead of seq_printf()
In-Reply-To: <001201cf1cae$2d60ce80$88226b80$%han@samsung.com>
References: <001d01cf1bc9$452569d0$cf703d70$%han@samsung.com>
 <001f01cf1bc9$57767070$06635150$%han@samsung.com>
 <20140128155156.GC24617@arm.com>
 <001201cf1cae$2d60ce80$88226b80$%han@samsung.com>
Message-ID: <1390971650.11756.49.camel@joe-AO722>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 13:54 +0900, Jingoo Han wrote:
> 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 <jg1.han@samsung.com>
> > > ---
> > >  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.

No worries from me.

I'm happy you can ignore checkpatch bleatings
you don't agree with.

It's a stupid little checker.
People are much smarter.

cheers, Joe