linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] Add the "verbose" module option.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 05 Aug 2014 10:59:07 +0200
From:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
To:	kreijack@...ind.it
Cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bryan@...troute.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Add the "verbose" module option.

Le Monday 04 August 2014 à 19:10 +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli a écrit :
> On 08/04/2014 10:46 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Le Sunday 03 August 2014 à 18:36 +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli a écrit :
> >> The printk without "(tuned %+d)" is never called because 
> >> LOG_TEMP was #define(d) equal to 0.
> > 
> > And this is what your second printk is replacing. So it should not have
> > the "(tuned *)" either.
> > 
> I removed the printk(s) from tune_fan(); the ones leaved replaced 
> both the ones inside tune_fan() and the ones outside.

I understand that. But you still had two final printks, one with "(tuned
%+d)" when level >= 0, which corresponds to what was printed in tune_fan
before, and another one when level < 0, which corresponds to what was
printed in poll_temp before, and that one did not have a "tuned +0" part
so I simply fail to see why its replacement should have it.

I admit I'm surprised we're arguing on that as it seems really obvious
to me, so I can only hope I'm not missing something even more obvious.

> Anyway, Benjamin which is your opinion ? 
> For me is equal to remove or to leave "(tune +0)" (when the tuning is equal to 0).
> Jean think it is better to remove "(tune +0)" (when the tuning is equal to 0).
> So if you haven't any objection I will remove it.

s/remove/not introduce/ is my actual point.

But I'm not going to argue more, I'm not even using that driver and it's
a debug message only anyway, so do as you wish.

Thanks,
-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/