linux-kernel - Re: staging: ks7010: Replace three printk() calls by 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]

Message-ID: <1471109478.3467.33.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Sat, 13 Aug 2016 10:31:18 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: staging: ks7010: Replace three printk() calls by pr_err()

On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 13:10 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > Prefer usage of the macro "pr_err" over the interface "printk".
> > Not correct
> A checkpatch warning like "PREFER_PR_LEVEL" can point additional possibilities out
> for this use case.
> Would you like to introduce any of the higher level logging functions instead?

I think pr_<level> is OK if reworking the code
to support dev_<level> is not easy.

> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c
> > []
> > > 
> > > @@ -998,11 +998,11 @@ static int ks7010_sdio_probe(struct sdio_func *func,
> > >  	/* private memory allocate */
> > >  	netdev = alloc_etherdev(sizeof(*priv));
> > >  	if (netdev == NULL) {
> > > -		printk(KERN_ERR "ks7010 : Unable to alloc new net device\n");
> > > +		pr_err(pr_fmt("Unable to alloc new net device\n"));
> > All of these pr_fmt uses are redundant as pr_err already does pr_fmt
> Thanks for your reminder.
> 
> Would you accept that another update will be appended to the discussed patch series?

No.  Patches should not knowingly introduce defects
that are corrected in follow-on patches.

> > alloc_etherdev already does a dump_stack so the OOM isn't useful.
> Does this information indicate that this printk() (or pr_err()) call
> should be deleted?

Markus, I don't know if it's your lack of English
comprehension or not, but it's fairly obvious from
my reply that this line should be deleted, either
in this patch or a follow-on.