linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 43/45] staging/lustre/libcfs: Replace use of printk with pr

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

Date:	Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:12:14 -0500
From:	Oleg Drokin <green@...uxhacker.ru>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 43/45] staging/lustre/libcfs: Replace use of printk with pr_<level>


On Feb 16, 2016, at 12:55 AM, Joe Perches wrote:

> On Tue, 2016-02-16 at 00:47 -0500, green@...uxhacker.ru wrote:
>> From: Oleg Drokin <green@...uxhacker.ru>
>> 
>> This pacifies checkpatch amongst other things, also is shorter to write
>> and avoiding calls to printk_ratelimit() is also good.
> []
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-tracefile.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-tracefile.c
> []
>> @@ -244,11 +244,11 @@ void cfs_print_to_console(struct ptldebug_header *hdr, int mask,
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	if ((mask & D_CONSOLE) != 0) {
>> -		printk("%s%s: %.*s", ptype, prefix, len, buf);
>> +		pr_err("%s%s: %.*s", ptype, prefix, len, buf);
>>  	} else {
>> -		printk("%s%s: %d:%d:(%s:%d:%s()) %.*s", ptype, prefix,
>> -		       hdr->ph_pid, hdr->ph_extern_pid, file, hdr->ph_line_num,
>> -		       fn, len, buf);
>> +		pr_warn("%s%s: %d:%d:(%s:%d:%s()) %.*s", ptype, prefix,
>> +			hdr->ph_pid, hdr->ph_extern_pid, file, hdr->ph_line_num,
>> +			fn, len, buf);
>>  	}
>>  }
> 
> This breaks the currently correct output.

Hm, you are right. Thanks!
I guess this patch just needs some redoing.

Greg, if you can skip this patch but still apply the rest of the series, that would be great.
I just tested that the whole thing builds and runs fine with this patch omitted.

Bye,
    Oleg