Re: [Fwd: Re: [PATCH 4/5]PCI: x86 MMCONFIG: introduce pcibios_fix_bus_scan()]

[Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 07:26:17AM -0500, Tony Camuso wrote:
>>> +
>>> +#define CHECK_MMCFG_STR_1 \
>>> +	"PCI: Device at %04x:%02x.%02x.%x is not MMCONFIG compliant.\n"
>>> +#define CHECK_MMCFG_STR_2 \
>>> +	"PCI: Bus %04x:%02x and its descendents cannot use MMCONFIG.\n"
>> Why define these if they are only used in one place?
>
> If you object, I will be happy to move them into the routine body
> without the defines. I agree that It does look inconsistent to have
> these strings defined and other strings embedded in the routine body.

Yes, please fix this.

>> Also, as you use dev_info(), I think you are duplicating some of the
>> information in the resulting printk(), right?
> Actually, no. The strings do not contain redundant info. The pr_info
> routine is just a macro for printk(KERN_INFO ...)

Ah, sorry, I was thinking you were using dev_info(), which is what you
should be using instead anyway :)

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/