Re: [patch 1/7] BSD Secure Levels: printk overhaul

[Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@firmix.at>]

On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 18:29 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 10:23 -0500, Michael Halcrow wrote:
[...]
> > @@ -198,15 +196,15 @@
> >  static int seclvl_sanity(int reqlvl)
> >  {
> >  	if ((reqlvl < -1) || (reqlvl > 2)) {
> > -		seclvl_printk(1, KERN_WARNING, "Attempt to set seclvl out of "
> > -			      "range: [%d]\n", reqlvl);
> > +		seclvl_printk(1, KERN_WARNING "%s: Attempt to set seclvl out "
> > +			      "of range: [%d]\n", __FUNCTION__, reqlvl);
> 
> Instead of changing each and every seclvl_printk() call to add
> __FUNCTION__, why not do this:
> 
> +static void __seclvl_printk(int verb, const char *fmt, ...)
> ...
> 
> #define seclvl_printk(verb, fmt, arg...) \
> 	__seclvl_printk(verb, __FUNCTION__ ": " fmt, arg)
> 
> It requires that the fmt be a string literal, but it saves a lot of code
> duplication.  I'm sure there are some more examples of this around as

And it duplicates identical format strings in different functions
(besides violating another unwritten rule). What about:
----  snip  ----
#define seclvl_printk(verb, fmt, arg...) \
	__seclvl_printk((verb), "%s: " fmt, __FUNCTION__, arg)
----  snip  ----

	Bernd
-- 
Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services




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