[patch] nvme-fabrics: correct some printk information

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2016-12-12 at 16:47 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2016, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 02:24:22PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2016-12-11 at 00:07 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 12:54:50PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > diff -u -p drivers//dma/pxa_dma.c /tmp/nothing//dma/pxa_dma.c
> > > > > --- drivers//dma/pxa_dma.c
> > > > > +++ /tmp/nothing//dma/pxa_dma.c
> > > > > @@ -640,9 +640,6 @@ static unsigned int clear_chan_irq(struc
> > > > >         dcsr = phy_readl_relaxed(phy, DCSR);
> > > > >         phy_writel(phy, dcsr, DCSR);
> > > > >         if ((dcsr & PXA_DCSR_BUSERR) && (phy->vchan))
> > > > > -               dev_warn(&phy->vchan->vc.chan.dev->device,
> > > > > -                        "%s(chan=%p): PXA_DCSR_BUSERR\n",
> > > > > -                        __func__, &phy->vchan);
> > > >
> > > > That's not a defect.  We're getting the address of vchan.  I don't get
> > > > it?
> > >
> > > $ git grep -n -w vchan drivers/dma/pxa*
> > > drivers/dma/pxa_dma.c:103:      struct pxad_chan        *vchan;
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're saying here still.  This code works as
> > intended.  We're not printing a stack address.
> 
> I guess that the point is that one would like to print the channel, not
> the address of the channel?

Generally, printing the address of a pointer
_can_ be useful, but it's likely a defect with
a low false positive rate.