Re: [PATCH] net: sfc: avoid format string warning

[Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>]

On 20/03/2026 20:48, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Right, I took a bit of a shortcut there. How about changing it
> so the other format string is just a name that gets joined with the
> number?

That would work, but all those -1s are a bit unsightly.  Like I said,
 I'd rather have two different efx_fill_test() functions, one which
 takes a unit_id and one which doesn't.
(Also you need to change the kdoc description of unit_name.)

> There are not a lot of good options here, and splitting the line seems
> better than an overlong line to me. I don't really have a strong opinion
> on where the __printf attribute should go either, but I do see that
> after the return type is probably the least common, so I'll change
> that. How about having the specifiers on one line and
> the type in front of the name? that seems faily common.
> 
> static __printf(7, 8)
> void ef4_fill_test(unsigned int test_index, u8 *strings, u64 *data,

I'd rather just have
static void __printf(7, 8) ef4_fill_test(unsigned int test_index,

Admittedly that puts the ( further over so fewer params fit on each
 line, but I definitely feel the function name should always appear
 on the first line of the definition.

-ed