Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] net-PPP: Replacement of a printk() call by pr_warn() in mppe_rekey()

From: Joe Perches <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 23:57:35 -0800

On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 08:18 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >>> It's generally nicer to replace embedded function names
> >>> with "%s: ", __func__
> >>>
> >>> 			pr_warn("%s: cipher_encrypt failed\n", __func__);
> >>
> >> Do you want that I send a third patch series for the fine-tuning of these parameters?
> > 
> > If you want.
> 
> Would "a committer" fix such a small source code adjustment also without a resend of
> a patch series?

Depends on the committer.  Some might, most wouldn't.

drivers/net/ppp doesn't have a specific maintainer.

The networking maintainer generally asks for resends
of patches that don't suit his taste, but lots of
non-perfect patches still get applied there.

It's a process, and it's not immediate.  Wait to see
if these get applied as-is.  If the embedded function
name use, which is trivial, bothers you, send another
patch later on that changes it.

> Does it make sense to express such implementation details in the Linux coding
> style documentation more explicitly (besides the fact that this update suggestion
> was also triggered by a warning from the script "checkpatch.pl").

Probably not.

Overly formalized coding style rules are perhaps
more of a barrier to entry than most want.