On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 23:53 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2017-04-18 13:44, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:59:50PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote: [] > > > > > + ret = device_add(&mux_chip->dev); > > > > > + if (ret < 0) > > > > > + dev_err(&mux_chip->dev, > > > > > + "device_add failed in mux_chip_register: %d\n", > > > > > ret); > > > > > > > > Did you run checkpatch.pl in strict mode on this new file? Please do > > > > so :) > > > > > > I did, and did it again just to be sure, and I do not get any complaints. > > > So, what's wrong? > > > > You list the function name in the printk string, it should complain > > that __func__ should be used. Oh well, it's just a perl script, it > > doesn't always catch everything. > > isn't always correct :) > > Ah, ok.
Also, please use the checkpatch in -next as it has a slightly better mechanism to identify functions and uses in strings. $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl ~/1.patch WARNING: Prefer using '"%s...", __func__' to using 'mux_chip_register', this function's name, in a string #302: FILE: drivers/mux/mux-core.c:134: + "device_add failed in mux_chip_register: %d\n", ret); -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
