lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[RFC PATCH 20/21] list: Format CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION error messages consistently
Date
The error strings printed when list data corruption is detected are
formatted inconsistently.

Satisfy my inner-pedant by consistently using ':' to limit the message
from its prefix and drop the terminating full stops where they exist.

Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
---
lib/list_debug.c | 18 +++++++++---------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/list_debug.c b/lib/list_debug.c
index 3be50b5c8014..00e414508f93 100644
--- a/lib/list_debug.c
+++ b/lib/list_debug.c
@@ -23,10 +23,10 @@ bool __list_add_valid(struct list_head *new, struct list_head *prev,
struct list_head *next)
{
if (CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next->prev != prev,
- "list_add corruption. next->prev should be prev (%px), but was %px. (next=%px).\n",
+ "list_add corruption: next->prev should be prev (%px), but was %px (next=%px)\n",
prev, next->prev, next) ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(prev->next != next,
- "list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (%px), but was %px. (prev=%px).\n",
+ "list_add corruption: prev->next should be next (%px), but was %px (prev=%px)\n",
next, prev->next, prev) ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(new == prev || new == next,
"list_add double add: new=%px, prev=%px, next=%px.\n",
@@ -45,16 +45,16 @@ bool __list_del_entry_valid(struct list_head *entry)
next = entry->next;

if (CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next == LIST_POISON1,
- "list_del corruption, %px->next is LIST_POISON1 (%px)\n",
+ "list_del corruption: %px->next is LIST_POISON1 (%px)\n",
entry, LIST_POISON1) ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(prev == LIST_POISON2,
- "list_del corruption, %px->prev is LIST_POISON2 (%px)\n",
+ "list_del corruption: %px->prev is LIST_POISON2 (%px)\n",
entry, LIST_POISON2) ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(prev->next != entry,
- "list_del corruption. prev->next should be %px, but was %px\n",
+ "list_del corruption: prev->next should be %px, but was %px\n",
entry, prev->next) ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next->prev != entry,
- "list_del corruption. next->prev should be %px, but was %px\n",
+ "list_del corruption: next->prev should be %px, but was %px\n",
entry, next->prev))
return false;

@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ bool __hlist_bl_add_head_valid(struct hlist_bl_node *new,
unsigned long nlock = (unsigned long)new & LIST_BL_LOCKMASK;

if (CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(nlock,
- "hlist_bl_add_head: node is locked\n") ||
+ "hlist_bl_add_head corruption: node is locked\n") ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(hlock != LIST_BL_LOCKMASK,
"hlist_bl_add_head: head is unlocked\n"))
return false;
@@ -222,10 +222,10 @@ bool __hlist_bl_del_valid(struct hlist_bl_node *node)
if (CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(nlock,
"hlist_bl_del corruption: node is locked") ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next == LIST_POISON1,
- "hlist_bl_del corruption, %px->next is LIST_POISON1 (%px)\n",
+ "hlist_bl_del corruption: %px->next is LIST_POISON1 (%px)\n",
node, LIST_POISON1) ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(node->pprev == LIST_POISON2,
- "hlist_bl_del corruption, %px->pprev is LIST_POISON2 (%px)\n",
+ "hlist_bl_del corruption: %px->pprev is LIST_POISON2 (%px)\n",
node, LIST_POISON2))
return false;

--
2.20.1
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-24 16:38    [W:0.155 / U:3.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site