Re: [PATCH] [Coding Style]: fs/ext{3,4}/ext{3,4}_jbd{,2}.c

Paul Mundt
2008-01-11T11:24:35Z

On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:04:14PM +0100, Roel Kluin wrote:
> Paul Mundt wrote:
> > Take a look at how CONFIG_PCMCIA_DEBUG is handled.
>
> In drivers/pcmcia/Makefile, when CONFIG_PCMCIA_DEBUG=y, it gives
> EXTRA_CFLAGS += -DDEBUG
> which causes the definition of DEBUG as a macro, with definition 1.
>
> > With DEBUG()->pr_debug() conversion here you've silently dropped the
> > __func__ prefixing. Note that dev_dbg() is usually preferred when you can
> > get a hold of a struct device pointer, as it takes care of prettifying
> > the output with the driver name and so on, rather than the convention of
> > adding a prefix. If you can't get at the struct device pointer, you'll
> > probably just want to insert the __func__ prefixing manually at the
> > callsites.
>
> Ah, ok, then this should be right:
> --
> Replace printk wrapper - with a syntax error - by pr_debug.
> DEBUG is defined 1 when CONFIG_PCMCIA_DEBUG is set.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl>
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/pcmcia/au1000_xxs1500.c b/drivers/pcmcia/au1000_xxs1500.c
> index ce9d5c4..8e6426b 100644
> --- a/drivers/pcmcia/au1000_xxs1500.c
> +++ b/drivers/pcmcia/au1000_xxs1500.c
> @@ -55,12 +55,6 @@
> #define PCMCIA_NUM_SOCKS (PCMCIA_MAX_SOCK + 1)
> #define PCMCIA_IRQ AU1000_GPIO_4
>
> -#if 0
> -#define DEBUG(x,args...) printk(__FUNCTION__ ": " x,##args)
> -#else
> -#define DEBUG(x,args...)
> -#endif
> -
> static int xxs1500_pcmcia_init(struct pcmcia_init *init)
> {
> return PCMCIA_NUM_SOCKS;
> @@ -143,13 +137,13 @@ xxs1500_pcmcia_configure_socket(const struct pcmcia_configure *configure)
>
> if(configure->sock > PCMCIA_MAX_SOCK) return -1;
>
> - DEBUG("Vcc %dV Vpp %dV, reset %d\n",
> + pr_debug("Vcc %dV Vpp %dV, reset %d\n",
> configure->vcc, configure->vpp, configure->reset);
>
You're still changing the semantics here. The DEBUG() does __FUNCTION__
prefixing, while pr_debug() does not. This should be something like
pr_debug("%s: ....", __func__, ...); instead, if you want to maintain
consistency. Beyond that, this looks fine, yes.