On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 16:38 +0400, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
