Re: [PATCH net-next 02/10] e1000e: add timeout for TX HW time stamping work

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 19:02 +0100, Jakub Kiciński wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:48:37 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 18:34 +0100, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > Hardware may fail to report time stamp e.g.:
> > >  - when hardware time stamping is not enabled
> > >  - when time stamp is requested shortly after ifup
> > 
> > trivia:
> > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> > []
> > > @@ -1155,6 +1155,12 @@ static void e1000e_tx_hwtstamp_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > >  		skb_tstamp_tx(adapter->tx_hwtstamp_skb, &shhwtstamps);
> > >  		dev_kfree_skb_any(adapter->tx_hwtstamp_skb);
> > >  		adapter->tx_hwtstamp_skb = NULL;
> > > +	} else if (time_after(jiffies, adapter->tx_hwtstamp_start
> > > +			      + adapter->tx_timeout_factor * HZ)) {
> > > +		dev_kfree_skb_any(adapter->tx_hwtstamp_skb);
> > > +		adapter->tx_hwtstamp_skb = NULL;
> > > +		adapter->tx_hwtstamp_timeouts++;
> > > +		e_warn("clearing Tx timestamp hang");
> > 
> > Missing \n termination
> 
> I copied that line from ixgbe and assumed that the magic macro adds
> termination...
> 
> I see that igb and i40e also lack the \n on similar messages.

There's a bunch of them.

>  Can I fix
> them all in a single follow-up patch?

There are also a bunch of _dbg messages that lack that
\n and those seem to be function tracing uses that should
just be deleted.