On Tue, Aug 16 2022, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 05:00:50PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote: >> Le 09/08/2022 à 18:20, Jason Gunthorpe a écrit : >> > On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 09:56:13PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote: >> > > L and S are swapped/ >> > > s/VFIO_FLS_MC/VFIO_FSL_MC/ >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > > --- >> > > All the dev_ logging functions in the file have the "VFIO_FSL_MC: " >> > > prefix. >> > > As they are dev_ function, the driver should already be displayed. >> > > >> > > So, does it make sense or could they be all removed? >> > > --- >> > > drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c | 2 +- >> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > > >> > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c b/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c >> > > index 3feff729f3ce..66d01db1d240 100644 >> > > --- a/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c >> > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c >> > > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static void vfio_fsl_mc_close_device(struct vfio_device *core_vdev) >> > > if (WARN_ON(ret)) >> > > dev_warn(&mc_cont->dev, >> > > - "VFIO_FLS_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); >> > > + "VFIO_FSL_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); >> > >> > WARN_ON already prints, this is better written as >> > >> > WARN(ret, "VFIO_FSL_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); >> >> Or maybe, just: >> if (ret) >> dev_warn(&mc_cont->dev, >> "VFIO_FSL_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret); >> >> This keep information about the device, avoid the duplicate printing related >> to WARN_ON+dev_warn and is more in line with error handling in other files. >> >> Do you agree or do you prefer a v2 as you proposed with WARN()? > > If the original author wrote WARN I would not degrade it to just a > dev_warn. Having to decide between losing the WARN and losing the device info, I'd just... fix the typo :)
