On 04/12/2012 01:04 PM, Jim Kukunas wrote:
>
> This keeps with the existing code conventions. The code block is:
>
> extern const u8 raid6_gfmul[256][256] __attribute__((aligned(256)));
> extern const u8 raid6_vgfmul[256][32] __attribute__((aligned(256)));
> extern const u8 raid6_gfexp[256] __attribute__((aligned(256)));
> extern const u8 raid6_gfinv[256] __attribute__((aligned(256)));
> extern const u8 raid6_gfexi[256] __attribute__((aligned(256)));
>
>> WARNING: printk() should include KERN_ facility level
>> #120: FILE: lib/raid6/algos.c:103:
>> + printk("raid6: using %s recovery algorith\n", nest->name);
>>
>> WARNING: printk() should include KERN_ facility level
>> #122: FILE: lib/raid6/algos.c:105:
>> + printk("raid6: Yikes! No recovery algorithm found!\n");
>>
>> WARNING: printk() should include KERN_ facility level
>> #159: FILE: lib/raid6/algos.c:176:
>> + printk("raid6: Yikes! No memory available.\n");
>
> Again, these are following the conventions of the existing code such as:
>
> printk("raid6: using algorithm %s (%ld MB/s)\n",
>
> In fact, the last printk, about no memory available, was simply moved to a
> different line in my patch.
>
A lot of the RAID-6 code predates the modern kernel conventions. It
would be good to clean that up, but that is largely orthogonal to this
patch.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
