Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] checkpatch: Add dev_err_probe() to the list of Log Functions

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 08:34:14AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 12/1/23 08:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 08:01:28AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 12/1/23 07:14, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > dev_err_probe() is missing in the list of Log Functions and hence
> > > > checkpatch issues a warning in the cases when any other function
> > > > in use won't trigger it. Add dev_err_probe() to the list to behave
> > > > consistently.

...

> > > Not sure if I agree. The difference here is that dev_err_probe()
> > > has two additional parameters ahead of the string. I would very much prefer
> > > to have those two additional parameters on a separate line if the string is
> > > too long to fit in 100 columns with those two parameters on the same line.
> > > In other words, I very much prefer
> > > 
> > > 	dev_err_probe(dev, -ESOMETHING,
> > > 		      "very long string");
> > > over
> > > 	dev_err_probe(dev, -ESOMETHING, "very long string");
> > > 
> > > and I don't really think that the latter has any benefits.
> > > 
> > > Also note that other dev_xxx() log functions are not included in the above test
> > > and would still generate warnings. Accepting
> > > 
> > > 	dev_err_probe(dev, -ESOMETHING, "very long string");
> > > but not
> > > 	dev_err(dev, "very long string");
> > 
> > They are included, see the line previous to the added one.
> > (Regexp covers something like x_y_()* and x_*() families with the explicitly
> >   listed * suffixes.)
> > 
> > That's why _this_ change makes it consistent.
> > 
> 
> Hmm ok. Still don't like it.

But then it's orthogonal to the change as with consistent behaviour you may
propose a fix that makes sure that long string literal goes to a separate line
(after a threshold) for _all_ of them at once. Currently the behaviour is
inconsistent independently on somebody's preferences...

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko