On Wed, 2019-08-28 at 20:40 +0200, Krzysztof Wilczynski wrote: > Hello Joe, > > Thank you for feedback. > [...] > > > Move to pr_debug() over using DBG() from > > > arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h. > > > > You might also consider the checkpatch output for this patch. > > > > arch/x86/pci/pcbios.c:116: WARNING: line over 80 characters > > arch/x86/pci/pcbios.c:116: WARNING: Prefer using '"%s...", __func__' > > to using 'bios32_service', this function's name, in a string > > arch/x86/pci/pcbios.c:119: WARNING: Prefer using '"%s...", __func__' > > to using 'bios32_service', this function's name, in a string > > arch/x86/pci/pcbios.c:391: WARNING: line over 80 characters > > Good point. > > The lines over 80 characters wide would be taken care of when > moving to using the pr_ macros as the line length will now be > shorter contrary to when the e.g., printk(KERNEL_INFO ...), > etc., was used.
Not really, those were the warnings checkpatch emits on your actual patch. > The other warnings I am going to address in v3. I was thinking > of replacing the following: > > pr_warn("bios32_service(0x%lx): not present\n", service); > > With something that looks like this: > > pr_warn("BIOS32 Service(0x%lx): not present\n", service); > > Using "bios32_service" name directly or even moving to __func__ > feels a lot like an implementation detail is exposed to the > end user. I am not sure how useful that could be. Also, > we are already using log lines starting with "BIOS32", thus > it seemed like following them would be the most sensible > choice, especially to keep messages consistent. > > What do you think? Fine with me, your patch, your choices.