On Sat, 29 Oct 2011, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:54:34AM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > > + default:
> > > + pr_err("unhandled packet type %d, tid %llx len
> > > %d\n",
> > > + desc->type,
> > > + req_id,
> > > + bytes_recvd);
> >
> > Why not:
> >
> > pr_err("unhandled packet type %d, tid %llx
> > len %d\n", desc->type, req_id,
> > bytes_recvd);
>
> Because then the printk would be messed up? Your final printed
> string would look like:
>
> "unhandled packet type %d, tid %llx
> len %d\n"
>
> Don't break strings up across lines because it breaks grep. If K. Y.
> wants to put all the parameters on one line instead of three that
> would probably be better, but in the end who cares?
>
Right, so I obviously "fat fingered" that and should have read my email
once more before sending. *But* the point really was just the "put all the
parameters on one line rather than 3" bit...
As for who cares; well, I cared enough to actually read the patch and send
a reply, and I thought we needed more reviewers... When I review something
I comment on everything I spot from bugs to trivial stuff - then it is
up to the recipient to pick the things they want to address from the
reply..
--
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]> http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
