[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1378258258.7347.48.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 18:30:58 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: "Nelson, Shannon" <shannon.nelson@...el.com>
Cc: "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH 0/4] i40e: Neatening and object size
reductions
On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 01:00 +0000, Nelson, Shannon wrote:
Hi Shannon.
> > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Perches
> [mailto:joe@...ches.com] > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 4:06 PM > >
> Just some potential cleanings...
>
> > i40e: Whitespace cleaning
>
> Hmmm, we hadn't noticed the new experimental "--fix" option before.
> There are a lot of good suggestions there, but obviously it needs a lot
> of reading and tweaking before it can be used. There are cases here
> where function call parameters are adjusted to line up with the opening
> '(' but that pushes the parameter(s) beyond 80 columns - we're trying
> to stay within the 80 column line and checkpatch clean. Also, there
> are several where the first continued parameter line indent is changed
> but the next line or two are not.
>
> We'll spend time going through these and try to take care of what makes
> sense.
Swell. All these are your choice to fix as you want.
Exceeding 80 columns doesn't bother me much.
Keeping alignment appropriate for multi-line statements
needs work inside checkpatch. I played with it a bit
but it's unfortunately complicated by intermixed
insertions and deletions.
> > i40e: Add and use pf_<level>
>
> We had considered this kind of macro awhile ago, but nixed it for a few
> different reasons, but primarily because it seems like
> yet-another-print-macro and not necessarily worth the effort.
>
> > i40e: pf_<level> remove "%s: " ... __func__
>
> We're beginning to remove many of the __func__ uses, so these prints
> are no longer all doing the __func__ thing. We originally had them
> there for early development and debugging and are currently removing
> them from the normal path messages.
Fine by me. I think __func__ is nearly always pretty
useless myself.
> > i40e: Convert pf_<level> macros to functions
>
> Doesn't this create a problem with polluting the kernel namespace?
> These don't apply to any other driver. I suppose we could lessen the
> namespace problem with i40e_ prefix, but I'm still not sold on it. I
> suspect we can still get much of the text savings replacing the
> __func__ with __builtin_return_address(0) where needed, and remove them
> where no longer needed. Does that work for you?
I think you could just as soon whatever combinations of the
other standard logging mechanisms without using pf_<level>
wiphy_<level>
netif_<level>
netdev_<level>
dev_<level>
pr_<level>
as appropriate. I did that only because there was ~10K
of what I think of as not too useful function names out
of a defconfig size of 140k.
> > i40e: Fix 32 bit shift compilation warnings
>
> Sure.
I think you should use the kernel.h standard macros
for lower_32_bits and upper_32_bits instead.
cheers, Joe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists