Re: [PATCH 1/1] drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c: checkpatch warning

[Chewie Lin]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:14:11AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 04:58:48PM -0700, Chewie Lin wrote:
> > Swap string in the dev_warn() call with __func__ argument, instead of
> > explicitly calling the function name in the string:
> > 
> >         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 9e074e9daf4e..71c4511b4cff 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 fail status=%d\n", __func__, status);
> 
> But the call that failed was called usb_device_reset(), right?  Why is
> this function even needed at all, have the caller call the correct
> function instead please, and then this whole function can be deleted.
> 

thanks greg. 
Yes, I think that's a good approach as well. I initially wanted to fix a 
coding style problem without touching the function calls, but I can 
definitely do that as well. 

linsh