On Sat, 2013-06-29 at 00:40 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 06/29/2013 12:21 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 19:49 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> >
> >> @@ -536,11 +540,8 @@ void sctp_assoc_rm_peer(struct sctp_association *asoc,
> >> struct list_head *pos;
> >> struct sctp_transport *transport;
> >>
> >> - SCTP_DEBUG_PRINTK_IPADDR("sctp_assoc_rm_peer:association %p addr: ",
> >> - " port: %d\n",
> >> - asoc,
> >> - (&peer->ipaddr),
> >> - ntohs(peer->ipaddr.v4.sin_port));
> >> + pr_debug("%s: association:%p addr:%pISpc\n",
> >> + __func__, asoc, &peer->ipaddr.sa);
> >
> > Hi again Daniel.
> >
> > Perhaps the format is better written as "%pIScp"
> > with the port after the compression as that's how
> > the actual output would be produced.
>
> Actually it really doesn't matter. One could also argue that this way it's
> from generic to specific ... i.e. "%pISp" is the generic part as it's valid
> for both IPv4/IPv6, and "c" is a IPv6-specific appendix.
<shrug> I read left to right. The ipv6 bit comes first.
Also, I'm not demanding, just suggesting.
> >> @@ -636,12 +637,8 @@ struct sctp_transport *sctp_assoc_add_peer(struct sctp_association *asoc,
> > []
> >> + pr_debug("%s: association:%p addr:%pISpc state:%d\n", __func__,
> >> + asoc, &addr->sa, peer_state);
> >
> > etc...
> >
> >> + pr_debug("%s: sending window update SACK- asoc:%p rwnd:%u "
> >> + "a_rwnd:%u\n", __func__, asoc, asoc->rwnd,
> >
> > Please coalesce formats. It doesn't matter if
> > the coalesced format exceeds 80 cols.
[]
> Hm, as this is something cosmetic, really really minor and does not concern
> all pr_debugs, are you okay if I "fix" some of them (where appropriate) as
> a follow-up? Thanks !
'course.
Please do run your patches through checkpatch though.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
