On Thu 2020-11-05 19:14:27, Matteo Croce wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 7:09 PM Petr Mladek <[email protected]> wrote: > > > + if (reboot_cpu >= num_possible_cpus()) { > > > + pr_err("Ignoring the CPU number in reboot= > > > option. " > > > + "CPU %d exceeds possible cpu number > > > %d\n", > > > > ./scripts/checkpatch.pl used to complain that printk() format parameter > > should stay > > on a single line (ignoring 80 char limit). It helps when people are > > trying to find which code printed a particular message. > > > > It is not a big deal here because %d does not allow to search the > > entire message anyway. > > > > I am not sure if Andrew would like to get this fixed. In both cases: > > > > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <[email protected]> > > > > Yes, I saw this warning, but to suppress it I had to write a 133 char > line, much beyond even the new 100 char limit. > I expect a smart user to just grep the first half of the string, like > "Ignoring the CPU number in reboot="
I agree with checkpatch in this case. IMHO, the more reliable way to grep the string is more important than the 80 or 100 chars per-line. That said, it is not a big deal in this case because of the %d. It requires to search only part of the string anyway. I am perfectly fine with keeping it as is. Best Regards, Petr
