linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] gpio: gpiolib: Print error number if gpio hog failed

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:	Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:28:10 +0530
From:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
CC:	<linus.walleij@...aro.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	<pawel.moll@....com>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] gpio: gpiolib: Print error number if gpio hog failed


On Wednesday 09 March 2016 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 03/08/2016 08:32 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday 08 March 2016 07:52 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:32:05PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 9 +++++----
>>>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>>>> index bc788b9..7575ebb 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>>>> @@ -2621,15 +2621,16 @@ int gpiod_hog(struct gpio_desc *desc, const
>>>> char *name,
>>>>       local_desc = gpiochip_request_own_desc(chip, hwnum, name);
>>>>       if (IS_ERR(local_desc)) {
>>>> -        pr_err("requesting hog GPIO %s (chip %s, offset %d) 
>>>> failed\n",
>>>> -               name, chip->label, hwnum);
>>>> +        status = PTR_ERR(local_desc);
>>>> +        pr_err("requesting hog GPIO %s, chip %s, offset %d failed
>>>> %d\n",
>>>> +               name, chip->label, hwnum, status);
>>> I find this type of format hard to read. I prefer a semi-colon to
>>> separate the message from the failure reason (i.e. error code).
>>>
>>> Besides that I don't understand why you're dropping the parentheses
>>> around the "chip %s, offset %d", I found that easier on the eye.
>>
>> I did to accommodate the  3 extra character ( %d) for string format on
>> that line as it was already near to 80 column.
>> Just did not want to split in multiple lines.
>
> Note that strings shouldn't be split across lines since it makes it 
> harder to grep for them. This is one case where the 80-column limit 
> isn't strict, within reason.

OK, so not change the existing string, just add new  format.