[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 3/3] checkpatch: add ethtool_sprintf rules

2023-10-30 Thread Justin Stitt
Add some warnings for using ethtool_sprintf() where a simple ethtool_puts() would suffice. The two cases are: 1) Use ethtool_sprintf() with just two arguments: | ethtool_sprintf(, driver[i].name); or 2) Use ethtool_sprintf() with a standalone "%s" fmt string: | ethtool_sprintf(,

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 3/3] checkpatch: add ethtool_sprintf rules

2023-10-26 Thread Joe Perches
On Wed, 2023-10-25 at 23:40 +, Justin Stitt wrote: > Add some warnings for using ethtool_sprintf() where a simple > ethtool_puts() would suffice. Hi again Justin. After I read patch 1/3 I don't object at all. spatch/cocci will always be a better option than checkpatch for conversions like

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 3/3] checkpatch: add ethtool_sprintf rules

2023-10-26 Thread Przemek Kitszel
On 10/26/23 01:40, Justin Stitt wrote: Add some warnings for using ethtool_sprintf() where a simple ethtool_puts() would suffice. The two cases are: 1) Use ethtool_sprintf() with just two arguments: | ethtool_sprintf(, driver[i].name); or 2) Use ethtool_sprintf() with a standalone "%s"

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 3/3] checkpatch: add ethtool_sprintf rules

2023-10-25 Thread Joe Perches
On Wed, 2023-10-25 at 23:40 +, Justin Stitt wrote: > Add some warnings for using ethtool_sprintf() where a simple > ethtool_puts() would suffice. > > The two cases are: > > 1) Use ethtool_sprintf() with just two arguments: > > ethtool_sprintf(, driver[i].name); OK. > or > 2) Use