Re: [PATCH 1/1] drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c: checkpatch warning

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 04:58:48PM -0700, Chewie Lin wrote:
> Swap string in the dev_warn() call with __func__ argument, instead of
> explicitly calling the function name in the string:
> 
>         WARNING: Prefer using "%s", __func__ to embedded function names
>         #417: FILE: main_usb.c:417:
>         +                        "usb_device_reset fail status=%d\n", status);
> 
>         total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 1058 lines checked
> 
> And after fix:
> 
>         main_usb.c has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chewie Lin <linsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c b/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c
> index 9e074e9daf4e..71c4511b4cff 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c
> @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ static void usb_device_reset(struct vnt_private *priv)
>  	status = usb_reset_device(priv->usb);
>  	if (status)
>  		dev_warn(&priv->usb->dev,
> -			 "usb_device_reset fail status=%d\n", status);
> +			 "%s fail status=%d\n", __func__, status);

But the call that failed was called usb_device_reset(), right?  Why is
this function even needed at all, have the caller call the correct
function instead please, and then this whole function can be deleted.

thanks,

greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [DMA Engine]     [Linux GPIO]     [Linux SPI]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Coverity]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux