From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mina86@mina86.com (Michal Nazarewicz) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:53:16 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 01/10] DMA, CMA: clean-up log message In-Reply-To: References: <1402543307-29800-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <1402543307-29800-2-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <87y4x2pwnk.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140612055358.GA30128@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: > I used ?function(arg1, arg2, ?)? at the *beginning* of functions when > the arguments passed to the function were included in the message. In > all other cases I left it at just ?function:? (or just no additional > prefix). IMO that's a reasonable strategy. At closer inspection, I realised drivers/base/dma-contiguous.c is Marek's code, but the above I think is still reasonable thing to do, so I'd rather standardise on having ?function(?)? only at the beginning of a function. Just my 0.02 CHF. -- Best regards, _ _ .o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o ..o | Computer Science, Micha? ?mina86? Nazarewicz (o o) ooo +------ooO--(_)--Ooo--