From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752369AbaLEHlf (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2014 02:41:35 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0188.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.188]:52687 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751132AbaLEHlc (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2014 02:41:32 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1540:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4321:5007:6261:7901:8603:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12517:12519:12740:13069:13095:13156:13161:13228:13229:13255:13311:13357:14040:14096:14097:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: plane60_2a24cbd1a325a X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2131 Message-ID: <1417765287.2721.39.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] net-PPP: Replacement of a printk() call by pr_warn() in mppe_rekey() From: Joe Perches To: Julia Lawall Cc: SF Markus Elfring , Sergei Shtylyov , Paul Mackerras , linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 23:41:27 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <1417731809.2721.17.camel@perches.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.7-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 08:21 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, Joe Perches wrote: > > It's generally nicer to replace embedded function names > > with "%s: ", __func__ > > > > pr_warn("%s: cipher_encrypt failed\n", __func__); > > Doing so may potentially allow some strings to be shared, thus saving a > little space. Perhaps not in this case, though. It's not necessarily a code size savings in any case. It can be, but the real benefits are stylistic consistency and lack of mismatch between function name and message. If the code is refactored or copy/pasted into another function, a moderately common defect is not modifying the embedded function name in the message. There may be some smallish savings if ever these __func__ uses were converted to use %pf via some internal standardized mechanism. A negative to that approach is inlined functions would take the function name of the parent not keep the inlined function name.