On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 08:18 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >>> It's generally nicer to replace embedded function names
> >>> with "%s: ", __func__
> >>>
> >>> pr_warn("%s: cipher_encrypt failed\n", __func__);
> >>
> >> Do you want that I send a third patch series for the fine-tuning of these parameters?
> >
> > If you want.
>
> Would "a committer" fix such a small source code adjustment also without a resend of
> a patch series?
Depends on the committer. Some might, most wouldn't.
drivers/net/ppp doesn't have a specific maintainer.
The networking maintainer generally asks for resends
of patches that don't suit his taste, but lots of
non-perfect patches still get applied there.
It's a process, and it's not immediate. Wait to see
if these get applied as-is. If the embedded function
name use, which is trivial, bothers you, send another
patch later on that changes it.
> Does it make sense to express such implementation details in the Linux coding
> style documentation more explicitly (besides the fact that this update suggestion
> was also triggered by a warning from the script "checkpatch.pl").
Probably not.
Overly formalized coding style rules are perhaps
more of a barrier to entry than most want.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
