From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755606AbdEIRel (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2017 13:34:41 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:36424 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752049AbdEIRej (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2017 13:34:39 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,315,1491289200"; d="scan'208";a="84740148" Message-ID: <1494351185.30052.94.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: Join string literals back From: Andy Shevchenko To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Darren Hart , Andy Shevchenko , ibm-acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 20:33:05 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20170509171040.GD19242@khazad-dum.debian.net> References: <20170509141721.15841-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20170509141721.15841-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20170509171040.GD19242@khazad-dum.debian.net> Organization: Intel Finland Oy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 14:10 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: Thanks for review, my comments below. > On Tue, 09 May 2017, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > There is no point to keep string literal split. It even makes > > slightly > > harder to maintain and debug. > > Ooold code, from a time when random people would annoy others over > 80-column instead of doing useful reviews... Yes, I know, nowadays checkpatch doesn't complain on them. > > While here, print negative error without changing a sign as it is a > > common pattern in the kernel. > > A separate patch for this would be better: it would be easier to > actually check that no functional changes crept in by mistake. It doesn't make sense to me. It would touch same lines of code I do already here and it's only one place, see below. > >   rc = fan_set_enable(); > >   if (rc < 0) { > > - pr_err("fan watchdog: error %d while enabling fan, > > " > > -        "will try again later...\n", -rc); > > + pr_err("fan watchdog: error %d while enabling fan, > > will try again later...\n", > > +        rc); -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy