Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751521AbaLEHTM (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2014 02:19:12 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.14]:53851 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750877AbaLEHTK (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2014 02:19:10 -0500 Message-ID: <54815C5F.8090702@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:18:55 +0100 From: SF Markus Elfring User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Perches CC: Sergei Shtylyov , Paul Mackerras , linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] net-PPP: Replacement of a printk() call by pr_warn() in mppe_rekey() References: <5307CAA2.8060406@users.sourceforge.net> <530B5FB6.6010207@users.sourceforge.net> <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net> <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <547B4886.4080406@users.sourceforge.net> <547B496E.604@users.sourceforge.net> <547C5CBC.6060607@cogentembedded.com> <547C82A6.2030808@users.sourceforge.net> <547CA157.1080401@cogentembedded.com> <5480DA32.8000201@users.sourceforge.net> <5480DBDE.7040604@users.sourceforge.net> <1417731809.2721.17.camel@perches.com> <5480DFB5.4090708@users.sourceforge.net> <1417733101.2721.20.camel@perches.com> In-Reply-To: <1417733101.2721.20.camel@perches.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:tlOu3F0asddvgOOWuWSpbHMiZdBSQLWqLOI7FsWQQTZxiUHGwzD 8cHqCYK80GTSQt3oeXqP09wjRRS0otRUPRPv1zmEbAFd2rQI5vECHobED2Ff2yZ8ZTcjkf1 OT5qlr/q+iqlDY8fxcb6ik1j9ci/OPCi9MqO+FT5bHRSMghbV251GLp2nrIpQG7IA+MtrBU kipfr3mD35A0dCBAAvCug== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>> It's generally nicer to replace embedded function names >>> with "%s: ", __func__ >>> >>> pr_warn("%s: cipher_encrypt failed\n", __func__); >> >> Do you want that I send a third patch series for the fine-tuning of these parameters? > > If you want. Would "a committer" fix such a small source code adjustment also without a resend of a patch series? > I just wanted you to be aware of it for future patches. Thanks for your tip. Does it make sense to express such implementation details in the Linux coding style documentation more explicitly (besides the fact that this update suggestion was also triggered by a warning from the script "checkpatch.pl"). Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/