[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200327185138.5e98e17b@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 18:51:38 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@...il.com>
Cc: julia.lawall@...6.fr, boqun.feng@...il.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] trace: Replace printk and WARN_ON with WARN
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 21:23:57 +0000
Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@...il.com> wrote:
> Coccinelle suggests replacing printk and WARN_ON with WARN
>
> SUGGESTION: printk + WARN_ON can be just WARN.
> Signed-off-by: Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@...il.com>
> ---
> kernel/trace/trace.c | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> index 6b11e4e2150c..1fe31272ea73 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> @@ -1799,9 +1799,7 @@ static int run_tracer_selftest(struct tracer *type)
> /* the test is responsible for resetting too */
> tr->current_trace = saved_tracer;
> if (ret) {
> - printk(KERN_CONT "FAILED!\n");
> - /* Add the warning after printing 'FAILED' */
NACK! Did you not read the above comment. The FAILED goes with another
print and should NOT be part of the WARN_ON.
-- Steve
> - WARN_ON(1);
> + WARN(1, "FAILED!\n");
> return -1;
> }
> /* Only reset on passing, to avoid touching corrupted buffers */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists