Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] net-PPP: Replacement of a printk() call by pr_warn() in mppe_rekey() | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Thu, 04 Dec 2014 23:57:35 -0800 |
| |
On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 08:18 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >>> It's generally nicer to replace embedded function names > >>> with "%s: ", __func__ > >>> > >>> pr_warn("%s: cipher_encrypt failed\n", __func__); > >> > >> Do you want that I send a third patch series for the fine-tuning of these parameters? > > > > If you want. > > Would "a committer" fix such a small source code adjustment also without a resend of > a patch series?
Depends on the committer. Some might, most wouldn't.
drivers/net/ppp doesn't have a specific maintainer.
The networking maintainer generally asks for resends of patches that don't suit his taste, but lots of non-perfect patches still get applied there.
It's a process, and it's not immediate. Wait to see if these get applied as-is. If the embedded function name use, which is trivial, bothers you, send another patch later on that changes it.
> Does it make sense to express such implementation details in the Linux coding > style documentation more explicitly (besides the fact that this update suggestion > was also triggered by a warning from the script "checkpatch.pl").
Probably not.
Overly formalized coding style rules are perhaps more of a barrier to entry than most want.
| |