Re: [x86] kernel/audit.c cleanup according to checkpatch.pl

[Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>]

[Tomas Carnecky - Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 01:10:28PM +0100]
> Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>> [=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn_Engel_ - Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:29:57PM +0100]
>> | On Thu, 3 January 2008 14:19:25 +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>> | > @@ -232,7 +232,8 @@ void audit_log_lost(const char *message)
>> | >  | >  	if (print) {
>> | >  		printk(KERN_WARNING
>> | > -		       "audit: audit_lost=%d audit_rate_limit=%d 
>> audit_backlog_limit=%d\n",
>> | > +		       "audit: audit_lost=%d audit_rate_limit=%d "
>> | > +		       "audit_backlog_limit=%d\n",
>> | >  		       atomic_read(&audit_lost),
>> | >  		       audit_rate_limit,
>> | >  		       audit_backlog_limit);
>> | | This hunk is a bit questionable.  It can easily deceive a reader to
>> | assume two seperate lines printed out and sometimes defeats grepping
>> | for printk output to find the code generating the message.
>> | | Rest looks good to me.
>> | | Jörn
>> | | -- | He that composes himself is wiser than he that composes a book.
>> | -- B. Franklin
>> | indeed.
>> here is updated one (with these part removed)
>
> Instead of removing that part completely, why not print this:
> "audit: lost=%d rate_limit=%d backlog_limit=%d\n"
>
> In that line there were too many 'audit's IMHO, and if someone wants to 
> grep 'audit_lost=' he still can, 'audit:.*lost=' or something like that..
>
> tom
>

Well, it seems David is a mainteiner of this code,
so if he would not argue against this the we could.

		- Cyrill -