2018-06-07 19:11:16

by Janani Sankara Babu

Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Staging:rtl8192e Replace function names by using __func__ identifier

This patch is created to solve the warning shown by checkpatch script
Prefer using '"%s...", __func__' to using ', this function's name,
in a string

Signed-off-by: Janani Sankara Babu <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c
index c466a5e7..3c7ba33 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c
@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *rtllib_ADDBA(struct rtllib_device *ieee, u8 *Dst,
}

#ifdef VERBOSE_DEBUG
- print_hex_dump_bytes("rtllib_ADDBA(): ", DUMP_PREFIX_NONE, skb->data,
+ print_hex_dump_bytes("%s(): ", __func__, DUMP_PREFIX_NONE, skb->data,
skb->len);
#endif
return skb;
@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *rtllib_DELBA(struct rtllib_device *ieee, u8 *dst,
tag += 2;

#ifdef VERBOSE_DEBUG
- print_hex_dump_bytes("rtllib_DELBA(): ", DUMP_PREFIX_NONE, skb->data,
+ print_hex_dump_bytes("%s(): ", __func__, DUMP_PREFIX_NONE, skb->data,
skb->len);
#endif
return skb;
@@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ int rtllib_rx_ADDBAReq(struct rtllib_device *ieee, struct sk_buff *skb)
}

#ifdef VERBOSE_DEBUG
- print_hex_dump_bytes("rtllib_rx_ADDBAReq(): ", DUMP_PREFIX_NONE,
+ print_hex_dump_bytes("%s(): ", __func__, DUMP_PREFIX_NONE,
skb->data, skb->len);
#endif

@@ -441,7 +441,7 @@ int rtllib_rx_DELBA(struct rtllib_device *ieee, struct sk_buff *skb)
}

#ifdef VERBOSE_DEBUG
- print_hex_dump_bytes("rtllib_rx_DELBA(): ", DUMP_PREFIX_NONE, skb->data,
+ print_hex_dump_bytes("%s():", __func__, DUMP_PREFIX_NONE, skb->data,
skb->len);
#endif
delba = (struct rtllib_hdr_3addr *)skb->data;
--
1.9.1

2018-06-12 17:04:42

by Andy Shevchenko

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Staging:rtl8192e Replace function names by using __func__ identifier

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 7:32 AM, Janani Sankara Babu <[email protected]> wrote:
> This patch is created to solve the warning shown by checkpatch script
> Prefer using '"%s...", __func__' to using ', this function's name,
> in a string

Have you even tried to compile it?

NAK

>
> Signed-off-by: Janani Sankara Babu <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c
> index c466a5e7..3c7ba33 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c
> @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *rtllib_ADDBA(struct rtllib_device *ieee, u8 *Dst,
> }
>
> #ifdef VERBOSE_DEBUG
> - print_hex_dump_bytes("rtllib_ADDBA(): ", DUMP_PREFIX_NONE, skb->data,
> + print_hex_dump_bytes("%s(): ", __func__, DUMP_PREFIX_NONE, skb->data,
> skb->len);
> #endif
> return skb;
> @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *rtllib_DELBA(struct rtllib_device *ieee, u8 *dst,
> tag += 2;
>
> #ifdef VERBOSE_DEBUG
> - print_hex_dump_bytes("rtllib_DELBA(): ", DUMP_PREFIX_NONE, skb->data,
> + print_hex_dump_bytes("%s(): ", __func__, DUMP_PREFIX_NONE, skb->data,
> skb->len);
> #endif
> return skb;
> @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ int rtllib_rx_ADDBAReq(struct rtllib_device *ieee, struct sk_buff *skb)
> }
>
> #ifdef VERBOSE_DEBUG
> - print_hex_dump_bytes("rtllib_rx_ADDBAReq(): ", DUMP_PREFIX_NONE,
> + print_hex_dump_bytes("%s(): ", __func__, DUMP_PREFIX_NONE,
> skb->data, skb->len);
> #endif
>
> @@ -441,7 +441,7 @@ int rtllib_rx_DELBA(struct rtllib_device *ieee, struct sk_buff *skb)
> }
>
> #ifdef VERBOSE_DEBUG
> - print_hex_dump_bytes("rtllib_rx_DELBA(): ", DUMP_PREFIX_NONE, skb->data,
> + print_hex_dump_bytes("%s():", __func__, DUMP_PREFIX_NONE, skb->data,
> skb->len);
> #endif
> delba = (struct rtllib_hdr_3addr *)skb->data;
> --
> 1.9.1
>



--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

2018-06-15 11:08:59

by Greg Kroah-Hartman

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Staging:rtl8192e Replace function names by using __func__ identifier

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 02:22:59AM -0400, Janani Sankara Babu wrote:
> Sorry , Kindly ignore this patch.

I'm dropping this whole series as I can not tell what should, and what
should not, be applied.

Please fix them all up and resend, as a properly threaded patch series.

thanks,

greg k-h