Thanks for reviewing. Yes, I just followed by reports of checkpatch.pl. But I don't understand why I can use of seq_puts() in the middle of seq_printf() calls. I have been trying to search why that is not good but I didn't find anything about that. And I saw patches which were already merged similar with this patch. You can see with this url https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/2d219c518882d2b2bac77742a6a8979c9dad051a https://github.com/mirrors/linux-2.6/commit/7aff38176e79a22b1749c2af74060028298e6a45 If you don't mind, let me know why it is not good. Thanks. Daeseok Youn 2014-02-10 18:11 GMT+09:00 Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:59:14AM +0900, Daeseok Youn wrote: >> @@ -1376,14 +1376,14 @@ static int ion_debug_heap_show(struct seq_file *s, void *unused) >> } >> } >> mutex_unlock(&dev->buffer_lock); >> - seq_printf(s, "----------------------------------------------------\n"); >> + seq_puts(s, "----------------------------------------------------\n"); >> seq_printf(s, "%16.s %16zu\n", "total orphaned", >> total_orphaned_size); > > This kind of thing where you put a seq_puts() in the middle of a string > of seq_printf() calls is not good. We only make checkpatch.pl warn > about it to see if patch submitters are paying attention and to test the > patience of reviewers. > > regards, > dan carpenter > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
