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

Chewie Lin
2017-04-01T03:18:33Z

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 07:45:09PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 19:15 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 03/31/17 18:59, 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);
> > > }
> > >
> > > static void vnt_free_int_bufs(struct vnt_private *priv)
> > >
> >
> > As other people have said:
> >
> > This function is usb_device_reset(). If that function name string is to be
> > used in the message, it should be done so by using __func__.
> > See http://marc.info/?l=linux-driver-devel&m=149095639202492&w=2
> >
> > Or is the called (failing) function name is to be kept in the message (as it
> > is currently), then the message should contain "usb_reset_device" instead of
> > "usb_device_reset". See http://marc.info/?l=linux-driver-devel&m=149098680312723&w=2
>
> If this is to be changed at all, I suggest
> just getting rid of the function.

These are good points, but any feedback on the dev_warn() call itself?
I was trying to fix the checkpatch warning on my first try.