Greg KH wrote:

>
>Your patch makes whitespace changes to a lot of dbg() statements, but
>does not modify their contents.  Can you please change this, as this
>change does not need to happen.
>
Yes, I realized it, but unfortunately too late. It's hard to revise all 
patch chunk by chunk and undo changes when content not changed.

>>Patch is against 2.4.17
>>
>
>2.4.18-pre2 has a _lot_ of usb changes and this patch misses a number of
>places.
>
>I'd also like to see this against the 2.5.x tree first, as the
>recommended compiler for the 2.4.x tree is still 2.95.3, and I don't
>think that will change anytime soon.
>
>thanks,
>
>greg k-h
>
Patch against 2.4.18-pre2 attached. For 2.5 tree - wait a bit, I have to 
return for a moment to business I get salary for.

Nick Craig-Wood wrote:

>
>I was going to suggest you use the C99 __func__ rather than
>__FUNCTION__ but after a quick test it doesn't seem to be supported by
>egcs-2.91.66 so I guess that is out for the time being?  It is
>supported by gcc-2.95 though.
>
I considered it too. Unfortunately, __func__ is not supported by all gcc 
versions, so __FUNCTION__ seems to be best solution so far. Also, I 
aggregated all changes to one place in macro definition, it should be 
easier to change, should this need arise.

>