On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 10:34 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 18:50 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 09:38 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > Add gcc format and argument printf checking > > > to reduce future defect introduction. > [] > > > #if defined(CONFIG_IWLWIFI_DEBUG) || defined(CONFIG_IWLWIFI_DEVICE_TRACING) > > > +__printf(5, 6) > > > void __iwl_dbg(struct device *dev, > > > u32 level, bool limit, const char *function, > > > const char *fmt, ...); > > > > But that looks a bit odd to me? It would seem more natural to me to put > > the attribute after the parameter list? > > It's an attribute of the function and > this style is used almost everywhere > in the kernel. I also found that for the inline, it *has* to be there. Checkpatch doesn't like it though if I put it in the same line as "static inline void" ;-) johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
