Re: [PATCH 001/001] drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c: checkpatch warning

[Joe Perches]

On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 18:59 -0700, Chewie Lin wrote:
> Replace string with formatted arguments in the dev_warn() call. It removes
> the checkpatch warning:
> 
> 	WARNING: Prefer using "%s", __func__ to embedded function names
> 	#417: FILE: main_usb.c:417:
> 	+			 "usb_device_reset fail status=%d\n", status);
> 
> 	total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 1058 lines checked
> 
> And after fix:
> 
> 	main_usb.c has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chewie Lin <linsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c b/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c
> index 9e074e9..2d9e7af 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c
> @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ static void usb_device_reset(struct vnt_private *priv)
>  	status = usb_reset_device(priv->usb);
>  	if (status)
>  		dev_warn(&priv->usb->dev,
> -			 "usb_device_reset fail status=%d\n", status);
> +			 "%s=%d\n", "usb_device_reset fail status", status);

So, what is failing?  usb_reset_device or usb_device_reset?

And this function is used exactly once, is trivial, and
would likely be better as direct code in the one place
it's used.