On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 10:09:30PM +0800, Marek Lindner wrote:
On Friday, February 10, 2012 07:41:37 Antonio Quartulli wrote:
+static inline void bat_dbg_arp(struct bat_priv *bat_priv,
struct sk_buff *skb, uint16_t type) {char buf[30];const char *type_str[] = { "REQUEST", "REPLY", "RREQUEST","RREPLY", + "InREQUEST", "InREPLY", "NAK" }; +
if (type >= 1 && type <= ARRAY_SIZE(type_str))scnprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%s", type_str[type - 1]);elsescnprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "UNKNOWN (%hu)", type);bat_dbg(DBG_ARP, bat_priv, "ARP message of type %s recognised ""[src: %pM-%pI4 dst: %pM-%pI4]\n", buf, ARP_HW_SRC(skb),&ARP_IP_SRC(skb), ARP_HW_DST(skb), &ARP_IP_DST(skb));+}
Every time this fucntion is called an additional bat_dgb() call is made directly before that (as far as I can tell). Wouldn't it make sense to include this extra message as parameter to bat_dbg_arp() ?
I'd say it's a good idea. Despite of the current usage, I thought this function to be responsible to print the content of the message only. The fact that a bat_dbg() invocation always precedes its is just a coincident.
But adding a another argument (which can eventually be NULL) makes much sense :) Thanks!
Cheers,