From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/5] ceph: Convert pr_warning to pr_warn Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:20:07 -0700 Message-ID: <1410358807.24028.44.camel@joe-AO725> References: <714b7551f5a6ea5e721fed705568a39eeae4623b.1410322181.git.joe@perches.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Sage Weil , "David S. Miller" , Ceph Development , Linux Kernel Mailing List To: Ilya Dryomov Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 16:38 +0400, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > > Use the more common pr_warn. > > > > Other miscellanea: > > > > o Coalesce formats > > o Realign arguments [] > > diff --git a/net/ceph/messenger.c b/net/ceph/messenger.c [] > > @@ -2828,8 +2828,9 @@ static void con_work(struct work_struct *work) > > */ > > static void con_fault(struct ceph_connection *con) > > { > > - pr_warning("%s%lld %s %s\n", ENTITY_NAME(con->peer_name), > > - ceph_pr_addr(&con->peer_addr.in_addr), con->error_msg); > > + pr_warn("%s%lld %s %s\n", > > + ENTITY_NAME(con->peer_name), > > + ceph_pr_addr(&con->peer_addr.in_addr), con->error_msg); > > Just wondering, why did you move ENITITY_NAME argument to the next > line? I see you are doing this pretty consistently. Is this a style > guideline or something? Hello Ilya. It's just a personal preference to have the formats on one line and its arguments on another when the format and its arguments don't fit 80 columns. Maximal 80 column fill isn't always easy for me to read. I find it easier to match formats and arguments when scanning because my eye doesn't have to scan to the end of the format line. If you don't like it, it's your code. Change it. cheers, Joe