On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 09:22 +0000, Mike Fleetwood wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 09:49:25AM +0400, Vyacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 20:23 +0000, Mike Fleetwood wrote: > > > Correct the name of the hfsplus FS driver as used in printk calls. > > > "hfs:" -> "hfsplus:". > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Fleetwood <mike.fleetwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Is there a current reason why the hfsplus FS driver uses "hfs:" almost > > > exclusively rather than "hfsplus:" as its name in printk calls? > > > > There are as minimum two reason for leaving "hfs:" prefix in peace: (1) > > historical - it is like code style of "old" library; (2) the prefix > > "hfs:" is shorter - so, it gives opportunity to make more descriptive > > comments by means of one line under 80 symbols kernel code style > > requirement. > > > > By the way, did you check your patch by scripts/checkpatch.pl script? > > > > Moreover, there are hfsplus driver's patches in linux-next that uses > > "hfs:" prefix. > > > > I doubt that this patch can improve hfsplus driver quality. It looks > > like changes in many places without changing anything in essence. > > > > With the best regards, > > Vyacheslav Dubeyko. > > > > In terms of line length I was applying the exception in the CodingStyle > which says "never break user-visible strings such as printk messages, > because that breaks the ability to grep for them." to allow lines be > longer than 80 characters. > > I did use checkpatch.pl. It reported this for every printk: > WARNING: Prefer netdev_err(netdev, ... then dev_err(dev, ... then pr_err(... to printk(KERN_ERR ... So, if we begin to modify error messages in the hfsplus driver then, maybe, it makes sense to exchange the printk() on pr_err() and to prepare define for "hfsplus:" prefix? Then, we make checkpatch.pl completely happy. > After seeing that ext2/3/4, btrfs and xfs use printk and not any of > those functions I followed the majority. It also reported a couple of: > WARNING: line over 80 characters > I was applying the above exception. > > Absoutely this patch doesn't fix any faults and is not for 3.8.0-rc* but > for linux next. I just though that it would be useful for users to be > told the name of the FS driver generating the message rather than a > different one. > Anyway, I think that changing "hfs:" on "hfsplus:" is not important. > Would an equlivant patch be accepted for linux-next? > How do I send it to linux-next? > I mean git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git when I am talking about linux-next. So, you can prepare patches are based on this repository. With the best regards, Vyacheslav Dubeyko. > Thank you Vyacheslav for reviewing my patch, > Mike > > > > > > Assuming not here's a patch to fix. > > > > > > (Any code which may have been copied between hfs and hfsplus has since > > > diverged significantly). > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mike > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
