linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 001/001] drivers/staging/vt6656/main

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 1 Apr 2017 04:46:23 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Chewie Lin <linsh@...gonstate.edu>, greg@...ah.com,
        forest@...ttletooquiet.net, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 001/001] drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c: checkpatch
 warning

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 08:36:22PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-04-01 at 04:32 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 06:59:19PM -0700, Chewie Lin wrote:
> > > Replace string with formatted arguments in the dev_warn() call. It removes
> > > the checkpatch warning:
> > > 
> > > 	WARNING: Prefer using "%s", __func__ to embedded function names
> []
> > Again, checkpatch warning is badly written
> 
> In your opinion, what wording would be better?

MILD SUGGESTION: don't spell the function name out in format strings;
	"this_function: foo is %d", n
might be better off as
	"%s: foo is %d", __func__, n
in case you ever move it to another function or rename your function.