> On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 11:01 -0400, James Simmons wrote: > > Due to the way the DFID was embedded in our debug strings checkpatch > > would report the following error: > > unrelated trivia > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre/lustre_user.h > > b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre/lustre_user.h > [] > > @@ -532,7 +532,7 @@ static inline void obd_uuid2fsname(char *buf, char > > *uuid, int buflen) > > #define FID_NOBRACE_LEN 40 > > #define FID_LEN (FID_NOBRACE_LEN + 2) > > #define DFID_NOBRACE "%#llx:0x%x:0x%x" > > It's odd to use a mixture of %#x and 0x%x. > > Using > #define DFID_NOBRACE "%#llx:%#x:%#x" > would also save a couple bytes per use.
Changing that format would break things very badly. This is used in user land utilities and the kernel code. > Does there need to be a difference between an SFID > and a DFID_NOBRACE? _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
