public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	luk@wybcz.pl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: cleanup macros within include/rtw_debug.h
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 21:00:34 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210210210034.GA1919@kernelvm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210210201849.GA2696@kadam>

> > So I'm in the process of stripping out _dbgdump entirely as per Greg
> > K-H's suggestion - am I to understand raw printk is frowned upon though,
> > even with the correct KERN_x level specified?
> 
> Yes.  Ideally in drivers everything would use dev_dbg() and dev_err() or
> whatever.  But it's perhaps tricky to convert everything in a single
> patch so changing _dbgdump() to "#define pr_debug" as an intermediate
> step is probably fine.
> 
> Look at how people do pr_fmt():
> #define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
> 
> You could do a patch that does a mass replacement of DBG_871X with
> pr_debug().  Again, I haven't really looked at this code so you'll have
> to double check and consider what is the best way to break up the
> patches.
> 

That sounds great, I'll take a look, thanks.

> > One query I have is that individual patches I'm working on for this file are
> > generating an awful lot of checkpatch warnings themselves due to the
> > nature of the existing violations on the relevant lines. Is it
> > considered acceptable for me to still submit these, providing I do so in
> > a series which cleans up the other violations in separate patches?
> 
> It's tricky to know how to break up patches.  Probably the simplest
> advice is to only clean up a single type of checkpatch warning at a
> time.  But fix all the instances of that warning in a file.  Don't
> change anything else even if it is tempting.  Do that in the next patch.
> 
> The actuall rules are slightly more complicated and nuanced than that,
> but if you just fix one type at a time then that's okay.
> 
> One thing is that your patches should not introduce new checkpatch
> warnings.  So if you have two statements in an if statement and you
> delete one, then that means you have to delete he curly braces as well.
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 

Thanks again for the feedback. I will work on something over the next
few days.

Regards,
Phil

      reply	other threads:[~2021-02-10 21:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-10 17:00 [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: cleanup macros within include/rtw_debug.h Phillip Potter
2021-02-10 17:12 ` Greg KH
2021-02-10 17:34   ` Phillip Potter
2021-02-10 17:48     ` Greg KH
2021-02-10 18:40 ` Dan Carpenter
2021-02-10 18:55   ` Phillip Potter
2021-02-10 19:36     ` Greg KH
2021-02-10 20:18     ` Dan Carpenter
2021-02-10 21:00       ` Phillip Potter [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210210210034.GA1919@kernelvm \
    --to=phil@philpotter.co.uk \
    --cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
    --cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luk@wybcz.pl \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox