Re: [PATCH v3] Staging: most: use __func__ instead of the function name
From: Chandra Annamaneni
Date: Tue Apr 25 2017 - 02:20:51 EST
Change video.c to use %s, __func__ instead of function names.
Warnings flagged by checkpatch.pl
Signed-off-by: Chandra Annamaneni <chandra627@xxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/drivers/staging/most/aim-v4l2/video.c
b/drivers/staging/most/aim-v4l2/video.c
index e074841..59e861e 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/most/aim-v4l2/video.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/most/aim-v4l2/video.c
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ static int aim_vdev_open(struct file *filp)
struct most_video_dev *mdev = video_drvdata(filp);
struct aim_fh *fh;
- v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "aim_vdev_open()\n");
+ v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "%s()\n", __func__);
switch (vdev->vfl_type) {
case VFL_TYPE_GRABBER:
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static int aim_vdev_close(struct file *filp)
struct most_video_dev *mdev = fh->mdev;
struct mbo *mbo, *tmp;
- v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "aim_vdev_close()\n");
+ v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "%s()\n", __func__);
/*
* We need to put MBOs back before we call most_stop_channel()
@@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static int vidioc_g_std(struct file *file, void *priv,
v4l2_std_id *norm)
struct aim_fh *fh = priv;
struct most_video_dev *mdev = fh->mdev;
- v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "vidioc_g_std()\n");
+ v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "%s()\n", __func__);
*norm = V4L2_STD_UNKNOWN;
return 0;
@@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ static int vidioc_s_input(struct file *file, void
*priv, unsigned int index)
struct aim_fh *fh = priv;
struct most_video_dev *mdev = fh->mdev;
- v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "vidioc_s_input(%d)\n", index);
+ v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "%s(%d)\n", __func__, index);
if (index >= V4L2_AIM_MAX_INPUT)
return -EINVAL;
@@ -441,7 +441,7 @@ static int aim_register_videodev(struct most_video_dev
*mdev)
{
int ret;
- v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "aim_register_videodev()\n");
+ v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "%s()\n", __func__);
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:06:54AM -0700, Chandra Annamaneni wrote:
> >
> > Sorry about the top posting.
> >
> > I did ask about it on the 9th of April and the reply was that the email
> > was 'acked'. Since I did not get a further email, I assumed it was lost.
> > Perhaps I misunderstood.
>
> I really do not know, sorry. If you didn't get an automated email from
> my system that it was applied, rebased it against the latest
> staging-next branch and resend it.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>