[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <xa1tegyujvxv.fsf@mina86.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:53:16 +0200
From: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>, Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] DMA, CMA: clean-up log message
On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com> wrote:
> I used “function(arg1, arg2, …)” at the *beginning* of functions when
> the arguments passed to the function were included in the message. In
> all other cases I left it at just “function:” (or just no additional
> prefix). IMO that's a reasonable strategy.
At closer inspection, I realised drivers/base/dma-contiguous.c is
Marek's code, but the above I think is still reasonable thing to do, so
I'd rather standardise on having “function(…)” only at the beginning of
a function. Just my 0.02 CHF.
--
Best regards, _ _
.o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science, Michał “mina86” Nazarewicz (o o)
ooo +--<mpn@...gle.com>--<xmpp:mina86@...ber.org>--ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
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