linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] Staging: most: use __func_

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704242318590.23632@panther>
Date:   Mon, 24 Apr 2017 23:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Chandra Annamaneni <chandra627@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
cc:     Chandra Annamaneni <chandra627@...il.com>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, christian.gromm@...rochip.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Staging: most: use __func__ instead of the function
 name


    Change video.c to use %s, __func__ instead of function names.
    Warnings flagged by checkpatch.pl
    
    Signed-off-by: Chandra Annamaneni <chandra627@...il.com>

diff --git a/drivers/staging/most/aim-v4l2/video.c 
b/drivers/staging/most/aim-v4l2/video.c
index e074841..59e861e 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/most/aim-v4l2/video.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/most/aim-v4l2/video.c
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ static int aim_vdev_open(struct file *filp)
        struct most_video_dev *mdev = video_drvdata(filp);
        struct aim_fh *fh;
 
-       v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "aim_vdev_open()\n");
+       v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "%s()\n", __func__);
 
        switch (vdev->vfl_type) {
        case VFL_TYPE_GRABBER:
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static int aim_vdev_close(struct file *filp)
        struct most_video_dev *mdev = fh->mdev;
        struct mbo *mbo, *tmp;
 
-       v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "aim_vdev_close()\n");
+       v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "%s()\n", __func__);
 
        /*
         * We need to put MBOs back before we call most_stop_channel()
@@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static int vidioc_g_std(struct file *file, void *priv, 
v4l2_std_id *norm)
        struct aim_fh *fh = priv;
        struct most_video_dev *mdev = fh->mdev;
 
-       v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "vidioc_g_std()\n");
+       v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "%s()\n", __func__);
 
        *norm = V4L2_STD_UNKNOWN;
        return 0;
@@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ static int vidioc_s_input(struct file *file, void 
*priv, unsigned int index)
        struct aim_fh *fh = priv;
        struct most_video_dev *mdev = fh->mdev;
 
-       v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "vidioc_s_input(%d)\n", index);
+       v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "%s(%d)\n", __func__, index);
 
        if (index >= V4L2_AIM_MAX_INPUT)
                return -EINVAL;
@@ -441,7 +441,7 @@ static int aim_register_videodev(struct most_video_dev 
*mdev)
 {
        int ret;
 
-       v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "aim_register_videodev()\n");
+       v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "%s()\n", __func__);


On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Greg KH wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:06:54AM -0700, Chandra Annamaneni wrote:
> > 
> > Sorry about the top posting.
> > 
> > I did ask about it on the 9th of April and the reply was that the email
> > was 'acked'. Since I did not get a further email, I assumed it was lost.
> > Perhaps I misunderstood.
> 
> I really do not know, sorry.  If you didn't get an automated email from
> my system that it was applied, rebased it against the latest
> staging-next branch and resend it.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
>