On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:53:00AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 22:29 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:25:34AM -0600, Ramirez Luna, Omar wrote:
> > > > + pr_info("%s:%d handle(s) still opened\n", __func__,
> > > > + atomic_read(&bridge_cref));
> > > I remember the rule was to break lines as far to the right as
> > > possible, no? Chapter 2 CodingStyle, same for the other similar
> > > changes.
> > It doesn't mean you have to right justify things, it just means
> > indented. The original code is fine here and the new code is fine
> > here. It's up to whoever writes the code to decide.
>
> I concur.
>
> My personal preference is to use a new line after the format
> string if necessary.
>
> ie:
> pr_<level>("fmt\n"[, args to 80 columns if all fit])
> or
> pr_<level>("fmt\n",
> args when single line exceeds 80 columns);
>
> So for this case:
> pr_info("%s:%d handle(s) still opened\n",
> __func__, atomic_read(&bridge_cref));
>
> I've done a patch here to tidspbridge that standardizes
> printk output.
>
> Basically, the patch adds
> #define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME "%s: ", __func__
> to prefix "tidspbridge:%s:", removes the leading
> "%s:...", __func__ from the uses, coalesces
> formats and does argument alignment.
>
> It cleans up the DBC_ASSERT, DBC_REQUIRE and DBC_ENSURE
> macros too.
hehehe... I also have one for this... But I prefer yours: I'm a newbie :)
vmjl
>
> I'm waiting for the Makefile change and whatever
> patches Víctor produces to be applied. I'll then
> redo my patch and submit it.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
