On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 12:18:01 -0400 Willem de Bruijn wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:54 AM Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:55:49 -0400 Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > > + switch (err->ee_errno) { > > > + case ECANCELED: > > > + if (err->ee_code != SO_EE_CODE_TXTIME_MISSED) > > > + error(1, 0, "errqueue: unknown ECANCELED > > > %u\n", > > > + err->ee_code); > > > + reason = "missed txtime"; > > > + break; > > > + case EINVAL: > > > + if (err->ee_code != SO_EE_CODE_TXTIME_INVALID_PARAM) > > > + error(1, 0, "errqueue: unknown EINVAL %u\n", > > > + err->ee_code); > > > + reason = "invalid txtime"; > > > + break; > > > + default: > > > + error(1, 0, "errqueue: errno %u code %u\n", > > > + err->ee_errno, err->ee_code); > > > + }; > > > > > > tstamp = ((int64_t) err->ee_data) << 32 | err->ee_info; > > > tstamp -= (int64_t) glob_tstart; > > > tstamp /= 1000 * 1000; > > > - fprintf(stderr, "send: pkt %c at %" PRId64 "ms dropped\n", > > > - data[ret - 1], tstamp); > > > + fprintf(stderr, "send: pkt %c at %" PRId64 "ms dropped: > > > %s\n", > > > + data[ret - 1], tstamp, reason); > > > > Hi Willem! Checkpatch is grumpy about some misalignment here: > > > > CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis > > #67: FILE: tools/testing/selftests/net/so_txtime.c:187: > > + error(1, 0, "errqueue: unknown ECANCELED > > %u\n", > > + err->ee_code); > > > > CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis > > #73: FILE: tools/testing/selftests/net/so_txtime.c:193: > > + error(1, 0, "errqueue: unknown EINVAL %u\n", > > + err->ee_code); > > > > CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis > > #87: FILE: tools/testing/selftests/net/so_txtime.c:205: > > + fprintf(stderr, "send: pkt %c at %" PRId64 "ms dropped: > > %s\n", > > + data[ret - 1], tstamp, reason); > > Thanks for the heads-up, Jakub. > > I decided to follow the convention in the file, which is to align with > the start of the string.
Ack, I remember the selftest was added with a larger series so I didn't want to complain about minutia :) > Given that, do you want me to resubmit with the revised offset? I'm > fine either way, of course. No strong feelings, perhaps it's fine if the rest of the file is like that already. > Also, which incantation of checkpatch do you use? I did run > checkpatch, without extra args, and it did not warn me about this. I run with --strict, and pick the warnings which make sense.
