On 06-Jan-21 09:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 10:29:18PM +0200, Filip Kolev wrote:
There is a debug message using hardcoded function name instead of the
__func__ macro. Replace it.
Report from checkpatch.pl on the file:
WARNING: Prefer using '"%s...", __func__' to using 'ov2722_remove', this function's name, in a string
+ dev_dbg(&client->dev, "ov2722_remove...\n");
Signed-off-by: Filip Kolev <fil.kolev@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2722.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2722.c b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2722.c
index eecefcd734d0e..21d6bc62d452a 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2722.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2722.c
@@ -1175,7 +1175,7 @@ static int ov2722_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
struct v4l2_subdev *sd = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
struct ov2722_device *dev = to_ov2722_sensor(sd);
- dev_dbg(&client->dev, "ov2722_remove...\n");
+ dev_dbg(&client->dev, "%s...\n", __func__);
dev_dbg() provides the function name already, and this is just a "trace"
call, and ftrace should be used instead, so the whole line should be
removed entirely.
Thank you for the review!
How do I go about this? Do I amend the patch and re-send as v2 or create
a new patch entirely?
Newbie here, doing this as part of the Eudyptula challenge, so I very
much appreciate everyone's patience.
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
