On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Sergei Shtylyov
<sergei.shtyl...@cogentembedded.com> wrote:
> On 12/23/2017 4:10 AM, Yafang Shao wrote:
>
>>>> There's a space character missed in the printk messages.
>>>> This error should be prevented with checkscript.pl, but it couldn't
>>>> caught
>
>
>> It is checkpatch.pl.
>
>
> Yes, that too. But I actually meant you missed "be" between "couldn't"
> and "caught"...
>
>>>> by running with "checkscript.pl -f xxxx.patch", that's what I had run
>>>> before.
>>>> What a carelessness.
>
>
>>> You generally don't need to break up the messages violating 80-column
>>> limit, and checkpatch.pl should be aware of this...
>
>
>> Oh. That's right.
>> It can be aware of that.
>
>
> It is aware --- I'm just not sure it recognizes TP_printk() -- like it
> does recognize printk() fo that purpose.
>
It recognizes TP_printk as well. I have verified.
>> I just want to make the code easy to read and limit the textwidth to
>> 80 character.
>
>
> Contrariwise, that's what you shouldn't do. Would simplify searching for
> the messages in the kernel source.
>
Agree to that.
>> If the message takes two lines as bellow,
>> printk("xxx "
>> ^ space character.
>> "yyy");
>> The checkpatch.pl could also be aware of that if the first line is
>> not end with space character, but it couldn't be aware of that if run
>> with "checkpatch.pl -f xxxx.patch".
>
>
> Option -f tells checkpatch.pl that it should check a source file, not a
> patch. I don't know why you use that with the patches...
>
Because the default option "--patch" sometimes shows some unnecessary warnings.
next time I will not use '-f' option.
>
>>>> Fixes: 563e0bb0dc74("net: tracepoint: replace tcp_set_state tracepoint
>>>> with
>>>> inet_sock_set_state tracepoint")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.s...@gmail.com>
>
>
> [...]
>
> MBR, Sergei
