Return-path: Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:44386 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752831AbaCKLQ5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:16:57 -0400 From: Kalle Valo To: Michal Kazior CC: linux-wireless , "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: unify warning messages in mac.c In-Reply-To: <8761nv44nd.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (Kalle Valo's message of "Mon, 3 Mar 2014 18:40:22 +0200") References: <20140303154327.1290.67278.stgit@potku.adurom.net> <8761nv44nd.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 13:16:46 +0200 Message-ID: <87k3c1gf35.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20140311_121701_499955_E6D9567F) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Kalle Valo writes: >> I think we should agree on one of the two approaches: >> >> a) start with a verb: >> >> "failed to add peer %pM on vdev %i: %d" >> "failed to initialize dfs pattern detector" >> "timed out while waiting for scan completion" >> >> b) start with a noun: >> >> "peer %pM on vdev %i could not be added: %d" >> "dfs pattern detector could not initialize" >> "scan timed out" >> >> These are still mixed. >> >> We could probably also limit the set of verbs, e.g. replace "could >> not" with "failed to" as it's practically the same thing (assuming we >> pick (a)). > > That's true. I would vote for option (a). I didn't get any comments about Michal's proposal. Can I conclude from this that (a) above is ok for everyone? -- Kalle Valo