RE: [E1000-devel] [PATCH 0/4] i40e: Neatening and object sizereductions

[Nelson, Shannon]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Perches [mailto:joe@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 6:31 PM
> 
> On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 01:00 +0000, Nelson, Shannon wrote:
> 
> Hi Shannon.
> 
> > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Perches
> > [mailto:joe@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 4:06 PM > >
> > Just some potential cleanings...
> >
> > >   i40e: Whitespace cleaning
> >
> > Hmmm, we hadn't noticed the new experimental "--fix" option before.
> > There are a lot of good suggestions there, but obviously it needs a
> lot
> > of reading and tweaking before it can be used.  There are cases here
> > where function call parameters are adjusted to line up with the
> opening
> > '(' but that pushes the parameter(s) beyond 80 columns - we're trying
> > to stay within the 80 column line and checkpatch clean.  Also, there
> > are several where the first continued parameter line indent is changed
> > but the next line or two are not.
> >
> > We'll spend time going through these and try to take care of what
> makes
> > sense.
> 
> Swell.  All these are your choice to fix as you want.
> 
> Exceeding 80 columns doesn't bother me much.

We should perhaps become a little more flexible ourselves, but we've finally got a good process going internally, including this as a check.  I don't dare disturb the machine now that it is working :-).

> Keeping alignment appropriate for multi-line statements
> needs work inside checkpatch.  I played with it a bit
> but it's unfortunately complicated by intermixed
> insertions and deletions.

Yeah, it all gets a little funky after a while.

> 
> > >   i40e: Add and use pf_<level>
> >
> > We had considered this kind of macro awhile ago, but nixed it for a
> few
> > different reasons, but primarily because it seems like
> > yet-another-print-macro and not necessarily worth the effort.
> >
> > >   i40e: pf_<level> remove "%s: " ... __func__
> >
> > We're beginning to remove many of the __func__ uses, so these prints
> > are no longer all doing the __func__ thing.  We originally had them
> > there for early development and debugging and are currently removing
> > them from the normal path messages.
> 
> Fine by me.  I think __func__ is nearly always pretty
> useless myself.

It was useful for a while, but it is time to be pulling it out.

> 
> > >   i40e: Convert pf_<level> macros to functions
> >
> > Doesn't this create a problem with polluting the kernel namespace?
> > These don't apply to any other driver.  I suppose we could lessen the
> > namespace problem with i40e_ prefix, but I'm still not sold on it.  I
> > suspect we can still get much of the text savings replacing the
> > __func__ with __builtin_return_address(0) where needed, and remove
> them
> > where no longer needed.  Does that work for you?
> 
> I think you could just as soon whatever combinations of the
> other standard logging mechanisms without using pf_<level>
> 
> 	wiphy_<level>
> 	netif_<level>
> 	netdev_<level>
> 	dev_<level>
> 	pr_<level>
> 
> as appropriate.  I did that only because there was ~10K
> of what I think of as not too useful function names out
> of a defconfig size of 140k.

Yes, and I think removing much of the __func__ or using __builtin_return_address(0) will help.

> 
> > >   i40e: Fix 32 bit shift compilation warnings
> >
> > Sure.
> 
> I think you should use the kernel.h standard macros
> for lower_32_bits and upper_32_bits instead.

Yep.

> 
> cheers, Joe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/