On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 04:05:33PM +0200, Heba Aamer wrote: > This patch fixes the following checkpatch.pl warning: > Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf > > Signed-off-by: Heba Aamer <heba93aa...@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c > b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c > index 8e22e45..4da837e 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c > @@ -364,7 +364,7 @@ static int osc_checksum_type_seq_show(struct seq_file *m, > void *v) > else > seq_printf(m, "%s ", cksum_name[i]); > } > - seq_printf(m, "\n"); > + seq_puts(m, "\n");
I don't think this is a straight search/replace issue, but: > return 0; > } > > @@ -601,7 +601,7 @@ static int osc_rpc_stats_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, > void *v) > seq_printf(seq, "pending read pages: %d\n", > atomic_read(&cli->cl_pending_r_pages)); > > - seq_printf(seq, "\n\t\t\tread\t\t\twrite\n"); > + seq_puts(seq, "\n\t\t\tread\t\t\twrite\n"); > seq_printf(seq, "pages per rpc rpcs %% cum %% |"); > seq_printf(seq, " rpcs %% cum %%\n"); if it were, why didn't you fix the other uses here? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
