On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 2:34 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 12:48:37AM +0900, Jaewan Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 12:55 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > +static int parse_ftm_capa(const struct nlattr *ftm_capa,
> > > > + struct cfg80211_pmsr_capabilities *out)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct nlattr *tb[NL80211_PMSR_FTM_CAPA_ATTR_MAX + 1];
> > > > + int ret = nla_parse_nested(tb, NL80211_PMSR_FTM_CAPA_ATTR_MAX,
> > > > + ftm_capa, hwsim_ftm_capa_policy, NULL);
> > > > + if (ret) {
> > > > + pr_err("mac80211_hwsim: malformed FTM capability");
> > >
> > > dev_err()?
> >
> > Is dev_err() the printing error for device code?
>
> I am sorry, but I can not understand this question, can you rephrase it?
I just wanted to know better about `dev_err()`,
because all existing code in this file uses `pr_err()`,
and there's no good documentation for `dev_err()`.
Given your answer below, it seems like that `pr_err()` isn't a good
choice in this file.
Am I correct?
>
> > If so, would it be better to propose another change for replacing all
> > pr_err() with dev_err() in this file?
>
> Odds are, yes, but that should be independent of your change to add a
> new feature.
Got it. Then I'll break the consistency in this file for my change,
and also propose another change for using `dev_err()` instead of `pr_err()`.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
--
Jaewan Kim (김재완) | Software Engineer in Google Korea |
jaewan@xxxxxxxxxx | +82-10-2781-5078
