Re: [PATCH v2] x86/PCI: Add missing log facility and move to use pr_ macros in pcbios.c

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

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.