Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH 0/4] i40e: Neatening and object sizereductions

[Joe Perches]

On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 01:00 +0000, Nelson, Shannon wrote:

Hi Shannon.

> > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Perches
> [mailto:joe@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 4:06 PM > >
> Just some potential cleanings...
> 
> >   i40e: Whitespace cleaning
> 
> Hmmm, we hadn't noticed the new experimental "--fix" option before. 
> There are a lot of good suggestions there, but obviously it needs a lot
> of reading and tweaking before it can be used.  There are cases here
> where function call parameters are adjusted to line up with the opening
> '(' but that pushes the parameter(s) beyond 80 columns - we're trying
> to stay within the 80 column line and checkpatch clean.  Also, there
> are several where the first continued parameter line indent is changed
> but the next line or two are not.
>
> We'll spend time going through these and try to take care of what makes
> sense.

Swell.  All these are your choice to fix as you want.

Exceeding 80 columns doesn't bother me much.
Keeping alignment appropriate for multi-line statements
needs work inside checkpatch.  I played with it a bit
but it's unfortunately complicated by intermixed
insertions and deletions.

> >   i40e: Add and use pf_<level>
> 
> We had considered this kind of macro awhile ago, but nixed it for a few
> different reasons, but primarily because it seems like
> yet-another-print-macro and not necessarily worth the effort.
> 
> >   i40e: pf_<level> remove "%s: " ... __func__
> 
> We're beginning to remove many of the __func__ uses, so these prints
> are no longer all doing the __func__ thing.  We originally had them
> there for early development and debugging and are currently removing
> them from the normal path messages.

Fine by me.  I think __func__ is nearly always pretty
useless myself.

> >   i40e: Convert pf_<level> macros to functions
> 
> Doesn't this create a problem with polluting the kernel namespace? 
> These don't apply to any other driver.  I suppose we could lessen the
> namespace problem with i40e_ prefix, but I'm still not sold on it.  I
> suspect we can still get much of the text savings replacing the
> __func__ with __builtin_return_address(0) where needed, and remove them
> where no longer needed.  Does that work for you? 

I think you could just as soon whatever combinations of the
other standard logging mechanisms without using pf_<level>

	wiphy_<level>
	netif_<level>
	netdev_<level>
	dev_<level>
	pr_<level>

as appropriate.  I did that only because there was ~10K
of what I think of as not too useful function names out
of a defconfig size of 140k.

> >   i40e: Fix 32 bit shift compilation warnings
> 
> Sure.

I think you should use the kernel.h standard macros
for lower_32_bits and upper_32_bits instead.

cheers, Joe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/