| Message ID | 001f01cf1bc9$57767070$06635150$%han@samsung.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:36:18AM +0000, Jingoo Han wrote: > For a constant format without additional arguments, use seq_puts() > instead of seq_printf(). Also, it fixes the following checkpatch > warning. > > WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf > > Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@samsung.com> > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > index c8e9eff..4507691 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > @@ -416,7 +416,7 @@ static int c_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) > seq_printf(m, "%s ", hwcap_str[i]); > > seq_printf(m, "\nCPU implementer\t: 0x%02x\n", read_cpuid_id() >> 24); > - seq_printf(m, "CPU architecture: AArch64\n"); > + seq_puts(m, "CPU architecture: AArch64\n"); > seq_printf(m, "CPU variant\t: 0x%x\n", (read_cpuid_id() >> 20) & 15); > seq_printf(m, "CPU part\t: 0x%03x\n", (read_cpuid_id() >> 4) & 0xfff); > seq_printf(m, "CPU revision\t: %d\n", read_cpuid_id() & 15); Just ignore the checkpatch warning. I prefer the consistency of seq_printf() in this function.
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:52 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:36:18AM +0000, Jingoo Han wrote: > > For a constant format without additional arguments, use seq_puts() > > instead of seq_printf(). Also, it fixes the following checkpatch > > warning. > > > > WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf > > > > Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@samsung.com> > > --- > > arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > index c8e9eff..4507691 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > @@ -416,7 +416,7 @@ static int c_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) > > seq_printf(m, "%s ", hwcap_str[i]); > > > > seq_printf(m, "\nCPU implementer\t: 0x%02x\n", read_cpuid_id() >> 24); > > - seq_printf(m, "CPU architecture: AArch64\n"); > > + seq_puts(m, "CPU architecture: AArch64\n"); > > seq_printf(m, "CPU variant\t: 0x%x\n", (read_cpuid_id() >> 20) & 15); > > seq_printf(m, "CPU part\t: 0x%03x\n", (read_cpuid_id() >> 4) & 0xfff); > > seq_printf(m, "CPU revision\t: %d\n", read_cpuid_id() & 15); > > Just ignore the checkpatch warning. I prefer the consistency of > seq_printf() in this function. (+cc Joe Perches, Dan Carpenter) Personally, I don't like the checkpatch warning. However, I respect your opinion on the consistency. Thank you for your comment. Best regards, Jingoo Han
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 13:54 +0900, Jingoo Han wrote: > On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:52 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:36:18AM +0000, Jingoo Han wrote: > > > For a constant format without additional arguments, use seq_puts() > > > instead of seq_printf(). Also, it fixes the following checkpatch > > > warning. > > > > > > WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@samsung.com> > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > > index c8e9eff..4507691 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > > @@ -416,7 +416,7 @@ static int c_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) > > > seq_printf(m, "%s ", hwcap_str[i]); > > > > > > seq_printf(m, "\nCPU implementer\t: 0x%02x\n", read_cpuid_id() >> 24); > > > - seq_printf(m, "CPU architecture: AArch64\n"); > > > + seq_puts(m, "CPU architecture: AArch64\n"); > > > seq_printf(m, "CPU variant\t: 0x%x\n", (read_cpuid_id() >> 20) & 15); > > > seq_printf(m, "CPU part\t: 0x%03x\n", (read_cpuid_id() >> 4) & 0xfff); > > > seq_printf(m, "CPU revision\t: %d\n", read_cpuid_id() & 15); > > > > Just ignore the checkpatch warning. I prefer the consistency of > > seq_printf() in this function. > > (+cc Joe Perches, Dan Carpenter) > > Personally, I don't like the checkpatch warning. > However, I respect your opinion on the consistency. > Thank you for your comment. No worries from me. I'm happy you can ignore checkpatch bleatings you don't agree with. It's a stupid little checker. People are much smarter. cheers, Joe
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c index c8e9eff..4507691 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c @@ -416,7 +416,7 @@ static int c_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) seq_printf(m, "%s ", hwcap_str[i]); seq_printf(m, "\nCPU implementer\t: 0x%02x\n", read_cpuid_id() >> 24); - seq_printf(m, "CPU architecture: AArch64\n"); + seq_puts(m, "CPU architecture: AArch64\n"); seq_printf(m, "CPU variant\t: 0x%x\n", (read_cpuid_id() >> 20) & 15); seq_printf(m, "CPU part\t: 0x%03x\n", (read_cpuid_id() >> 4) & 0xfff); seq_printf(m, "CPU revision\t: %d\n", read_cpuid_id() & 15);
For a constant format without additional arguments, use seq_puts() instead of seq_printf(). Also, it fixes the following checkpatch warning. WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@samsung.com> --- arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)