Re: [PATCH 001/001] drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c: checkpatch warning

Joe Perches
2017-04-01T02:16:45Z

On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 18:59 -0700, Chewie Lin wrote:
> Replace string with formatted arguments in the dev_warn() call. It removes
> the checkpatch warning:
>
> WARNING: Prefer using "%s", __func__ to embedded function names
> #417: FILE: main_usb.c:417:
> + "usb_device_reset fail status=%d\n", status);
>
> total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 1058 lines checked
>
> And after fix:
>
> main_usb.c has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chewie Lin <linsh@oregonstate.edu>
> ---
> drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c b/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c
> index 9e074e9..2d9e7af 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c
> @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ static void usb_device_reset(struct vnt_private *priv)
> status = usb_reset_device(priv->usb);
> if (status)
> dev_warn(&priv->usb->dev,
> - "usb_device_reset fail status=%d\n", status);
> + "%s=%d\n", "usb_device_reset fail status", status);

So, what is failing? usb_reset_device or usb_device_reset?

And this function is used exactly once, is trivial, and
would likely be better as direct code in the one place
it's used.