Andrew Morton <[email protected]> writes:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:06:27 +0200 Rasmus Villemoes
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Reading the source of lib/list_sort.c, I came up with a few possible
>> improvements. I think 4/4 may be a bit controversial, but 1/4, 2/4 and
>> 3/4 should be straightforward.
>>
>
> All looks OK to me.
Thanks.
> We may as well do the pr_foo() conversion as well. As often happens,
> the results are quite pleasing.
>
> --- a/lib/list_sort.c~lib-list_sortc-convert-to-pr_foo
> +++ a/lib/list_sort.c
> @@ -1,3 +1,6 @@
> +
> +#define pr_fmt(fmt) "list_sort_test: " fmt
> +
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/list_sort.h>
> @@ -125,9 +128,8 @@ void list_sort(void *priv, struct list_h
> }
> if (lev > max_lev) {
> if (unlikely(lev >= ARRAY_SIZE(part)-1)) {
> - printk_once(KERN_DEBUG "list passed to"
> - " list_sort() too long for"
> - " efficiency\n");
> + pr_debug_once("list passed to list_sort() too "
> + "long for efficiency\n");
Minor comment: Won't this end up saying "list_sort_test: list passed to
...", despite the list coming from a 'real' user? Maybe change the first
#define to '"list_sort: " fmt', the above message to "passed list too
long for efficiency", and redefine pr_fmt right after #ifdef
CONFIG_TEST_LIST_SORT.
Rasmus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
