On Tuesday, 3 April 2007 15:05, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 11:53:16AM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:25:23 +0200
> > Stefan Seyfried <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This is a RFC, i am not sure if printing the program name in all error
> > > messages is really useful, or if just "suspend:" is better there, but
> > > at least in usage() it should be the correct one.
> >
> > I think I would vote for not printing the program name at all in the
> > informational messages, only in the error messages. But I haven't given
>
> I think it is useful, because you can clearly see where those messages come
> from. Users will sometimes see kernel messages and s2disk messages mixed and
> it might be hard for them to tell which is which.
> And yes, this is where argv[0] comes in more handy then plain "suspend", since
> it is more exact.
Agreed.
> > it much thought and really don't care much;) If we do want to print
> > something there, I do want to have the argv[0] there, not suspend, else
> > it would be a bit confusing.
> >
> > A few small points:
> >
> > Maybe you can fix the message on line suspend.c:187 too?
>
> ok, i'd change it to (not resending whole diff):
>
> static inline loff_t check_free_swap(int dev)
> {
> int error;
> loff_t free_swap;
>
> error = ioctl(dev, SNAPSHOT_AVAIL_SWAP, &free_swap);
> if (!error)
> return free_swap;
> else
> suspend_error("check_free_swap failed.");
> return 0;
> }
>
>
> > > Index: suspend.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > RCS file: /cvsroot/suspend/suspend/suspend.c,v
> > > retrieving revision 1.73
> > > diff -u -p -r1.73 suspend.c
> > > --- suspend.c 1 Apr 2007 22:03:29 -0000 1.73
> > > +++ suspend.c 2 Apr 2007 16:14:53 -0000
> > > @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@
> > >
> > > #define suspend_error(msg, args...) \
> > > do { \
> > > - fprintf(stderr, "suspend: " msg " Reason: %m\n", ## args); \
> > > + fprintf(stderr, "%s: " msg " Reason: %m\n", my_name, ## args); \
> > > } while (0);
> >
> > What is this do { } while (0); thing good for?
>
> gcc magic, there is a good reason for it (something about breaking build
> instead of misbehaving at runtime), but i always foreget it.
http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ/DoWhile0
BTW, the ending semicolon is not necessary.
Greetings,
Rafael
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Suspend-devel mailing list
Suspend-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/suspend-devel
