On Thursday, May 09, 2013 07:10:36 PM Ortiz, Lance E wrote: > Rafael, > > Thanks for your feedback. > > > The way the changes are described here isn't particularly clear to me. > > I will try to make it a little more clear. Cool, thanks! > > Also, since aer_recover_work_func() is going to be the only existing > > caller of > > cper_print_aer() after this change, as far as I can say, and it doesn't > > use the > > function's first argument, that argument should be dropped entirely. > > The truth is, the function cper_print_aer() really needs to be re-written so > it is consistent with aer_print_error() in how it outputs information. > Right now, the output is formatted very differently. I was planning on doing > that at a later date, but fix the warning now. I might add a TODO comment in > the code for this. Yes, I think that would be OK, depending on the amount of changes actually needed to rework it (if that's not too much, I'd just go straight for the rework, honestly). > The reason I did not remove the argument in cper_print_aer() is because > 'prefix' is used in the call to cper_print_bits(), and I passed through an > empty string to make sure that function worked correctly. I can try to clean > it up. Please do. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
