On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 13:28 -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Sun, 20 May 2012, Nasir Abed wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/alarm.c b/drivers/staging/android/alarm.c > > index c68950b..4ea07bb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/android/alarm.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/android/alarm.c > > @@ -302,8 +302,8 @@ int android_alarm_set_rtc(struct timespec new_time) > > } > > ret = rtc_set_time(alarm_rtc_dev, &rtc_new_rtc_time); > > if (ret < 0) > > - pr_alarm(ERROR, "alarm_set_rtc: " > > - "Failed to set RTC, time will be lost on reboot\n"); > > + pr_alarm(ERROR, > > + "alarm_set_rtc: Failed to set RTC, time will be lost on reboot\n"); > > err: > > wake_unlock(&alarm_rtc_wake_lock); > > mutex_unlock(&alarm_setrtc_mutex); > > Looks like this would benefit from using __func__ since it already doesn't > represent the correct function name. true. Somewhat related, pr_alarm is a poor name choice. It should probably called alarm_dbg. o it's a duplicated #define it should be in some common #include o it's a debug test that emits at KERN_INFO _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
