From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752810Ab2GSS4R (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:56:17 -0400 Received: from g1t0029.austin.hp.com ([15.216.28.36]:47882 "EHLO g1t0029.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751254Ab2GSS4N (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:56:13 -0400 Message-ID: <1342724170.28019.23.camel@ejdallLaptop> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [Trivial] qib: fix an incorrect message From: Betty Dall To: Joe Perches Cc: trivial@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, infinipath@qlogic.com, roland@kernel.org, sean.hefty@intel.com, hal.rosenstock@gmail.com Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:56:10 -0600 In-Reply-To: <1342720992.1988.24.camel@joe2Laptop> References: <1342726459-2199-1-git-send-email-betty.dall@hp.com> <1342720992.1988.24.camel@joe2Laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Joe, Thanks for the comment Joe. It looks like Roland already accepted the trivial change. On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 11:03 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:34 -0600, Betty Dall wrote: > > There is a cut and paste typo in the function qib_pci_slot_reset() where > > it prints that the "link_reset" function is called rather than the > > "slot_reset" function. This makes the message misleading. > > Hi Betty. > > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/qib/qib_pcie.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/qib/qib_pcie.c > [] > > @@ -725,7 +725,7 @@ qib_pci_mmio_enabled(struct pci_dev *pdev) > > static pci_ers_result_t > > qib_pci_slot_reset(struct pci_dev *pdev) > > { > > - qib_devinfo(pdev, "QIB link_reset function called, ignored\n"); > > + qib_devinfo(pdev, "QIB slot_reset function called, ignored\n"); > > These sorts of typos can be avoided by using "%s: ", __func__ > > qib_devinfo(pdev, "QIB %s: called, ignored\n", __func__); You are right about using __func__. That is what I use typically too. In this file, none of the qib_devinfo() messages use __func__, so I stuck with the trivial change for consistency. I could write another patch that makes use of __func__ for all the appropriate qib_devinfo() calls (there are 4 of them.) Do you think that is a worthwhile change? BTW, I did review all the other qib_devinfo() calls to make sure they are using the correct function names, and they look good. -Betty