Re: [PATCH] drivers/net/others

Andrzej Krzysztofowicz
2001-05-24T12:07:41Z

> Thanks for your impressive clean-up patch. I have a couple of comments
> regarding your clean-up of the dmfe.c driver.

Thanks for your response.

> On Thu, 24 May 2001, Andrzej Krzysztofowicz wrote:
>
> > @@ -395,7 +395,7 @@
> > u32 dev_rev, pci_pmr;
> >
> > if (!printed_version++)
> > - printk(version);
> > + printk("%s", version);
> >
> > DMFE_DBUG(0, "dmfe_init_one()", 0);
> >
>
> Could you please explain the purpose of this change? To me it looks less
> efficient in both performance and memory usage.

Basically I also preferred to avoid the extra string here. But Alan suggests
it may cause problems while somebody wants to add a literal % to the version
string. Moreover, IMHO it is better to have a standard here, i.e. either all
drivers contain the format or none does.

If you still complain, I'll drop this change.

> > @@ -2024,8 +2027,10 @@
> > {
> > int rc;
> >
> > - printk(version);
> > +#ifdef MODULE
> > + printk("s", version);
> > printed_version = 1;
> > +#endif /* MODULE */
> >
> > DMFE_DBUG(0, "init_module() ", debug);
> >
>
> Whoups... And why did you add the ifdef, btw?

AFAIK module_init becomes __initcall while compiled into kernel. So it is
called (IMO) always and the previous "version" printing (around line 400)
would never be executed (printed_version == 1).
And we do not want to print version for built-in drivers which do not detect
hardware, do we ?

Andrzej

--
=======================================================================
Andrzej M. Krzysztofowicz ankry@mif.pg.gda.pl
tel. (0-58) 347 14 61
Wydz.Fizyki Technicznej i Matematyki Stosowanej Politechniki Gdanskiej