From: Jiangshan Yi <[email protected]>
It is better to use __func__ instead of function name.
Signed-off-by: Jiangshan Yi <[email protected]>
---
fs/efs/inode.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/efs/inode.c b/fs/efs/inode.c
index 3ba94bb005a6..ba15c7d66adc 100644
--- a/fs/efs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/efs/inode.c
@@ -141,8 +141,8 @@ struct inode *efs_iget(struct super_block *super, unsigned long ino)
}
brelse(bh);
- pr_debug("efs_iget(): inode %lu, extents %d, mode %o\n",
- inode->i_ino, in->numextents, inode->i_mode);
+ pr_debug("%s(): inode %lu, extents %d, mode %o\n",
+ __func__, inode->i_ino, in->numextents, inode->i_mode);
switch (inode->i_mode & S_IFMT) {
case S_IFDIR:
inode->i_op = &efs_dir_inode_operations;
--
2.27.0
No virus found
Checked by Hillstone Network AntiVirus
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 01:24:26AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:33:14AM +0800, Jiangshan Yi wrote:
> > From: Jiangshan Yi <[email protected]>
> >
> > It is better to use __func__ instead of function name.
>
> Why is it better? And why is it *not* sent to (active)
> maintainers of fs/erofs? I'm not going to apply that behind their
> backs and I would ask akpm to abstain from taking that one.
It's efs although it also starts with letter e and ends with fs ;).
I have no idea who actually takes care of it now.
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:33:14AM +0800, Jiangshan Yi wrote:
> From: Jiangshan Yi <[email protected]>
>
> It is better to use __func__ instead of function name.
Why is it better? And why is it *not* sent to (active)
maintainers of fs/erofs? I'm not going to apply that behind their
backs and I would ask akpm to abstain from taking that one.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 08:37:13AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 01:24:26AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:33:14AM +0800, Jiangshan Yi wrote:
> > > From: Jiangshan Yi <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > It is better to use __func__ instead of function name.
> >
> > Why is it better? And why is it *not* sent to (active)
> > maintainers of fs/erofs? I'm not going to apply that behind their
> > backs and I would ask akpm to abstain from taking that one.
>
> It's efs although it also starts with letter e and ends with fs ;).
> I have no idea who actually takes care of it now.
*blink*
I plead obscenely low caffeine blood levels.
And I'm still not taking that patch - IMO that kind of stuff is absolutely
pointless from anyone other than active maintainers of some code;
the rationale for using __func__ is based upon the possibility of
function getting renamed, and that's not going to happen on inactive
codebase.
IOW, *if* somebody is starting a serious work in that area - sure, might
as well throw that kind of change in, as part of the series. Other than
that, though... No.
From: Al Viro
> Sent: 20 September 2022 01:24
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:33:14AM +0800, Jiangshan Yi wrote:
> > From: Jiangshan Yi <[email protected]>
> >
> > It is better to use __func__ instead of function name.
>
> Why is it better? And why is it *not* sent to (active)
> maintainers of fs/erofs? I'm not going to apply that behind their
> backs and I would ask akpm to abstain from taking that one.
It is distinctly worse.
Anyone grepping the kernel source for the message text will
fail to find it.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)