[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <88b19a1c-7cea-9a28-3770-e235c286efed@igalia.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 16:38:02 -0300
From: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>
To: Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@...wei.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
bhe@...hat.com, pmladek@...e.com, kexec@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
x86@...nel.org, kernel-dev@...lia.com, kernel@...ccoli.net,
halves@...onical.com, fabiomirmar@...il.com,
alejandro.j.jimenez@...cle.com, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
arnd@...db.de, bp@...en8.de, corbet@....net,
d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
dyoung@...hat.com, feng.tang@...el.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
mikelley@...rosoft.com, hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com,
jgross@...e.com, john.ogness@...utronix.de, keescook@...omium.org,
luto@...nel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
paulmck@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
senozhatsky@...omium.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
tglx@...utronix.de, vgoyal@...hat.com, vkuznets@...hat.com,
will@...nel.org, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/30] notifier: Show function names on notifier routines
if DEBUG_NOTIFIERS is set
On 27/04/2022 22:01, Xiaoming Ni wrote:
> [...]
> Duplicate Code.
>
> Is it better to use __func__ and %pS?
>
> pr_info("%s: %pS\n", __func__, n->notifier_call);
>
>
This is a great suggestion Xiaoming, much appreciated!
I feel like reinventing the wheel here - with your idea, code was super
clear and concise, very nice suggestion!!
The only 2 things that diverge from your idea: I'm using '%ps' (not
showing offsets) and also, kept the wording "(un)registered/calling",
not using __func__ - I feel it's a bit odd in the output.
OK for you?
I'm definitely using your idea in V2 heh
Cheers,
Guilherme
Powered by blists - more mailing lists