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]

Date:	Sat, 13 Aug 2016 12:54:48 -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 21:30 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > 
> > I think pr_ is OK if reworking the code
> > to support dev_ is not easy.
> Thanks for this explanation. - It sounds more constructive than the previous short
> feedback "Not correct".

<frustration>
How do you need your food prepared?
Do others need to cut it for you to bite sized pieces?
</frustration>

You might have noticed I also wrote in the same reply:

"All of these pr_fmt uses are redundant as pr_err already does pr_fmt"

> > > 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.
> This view is fine in principle.

It is not just principle.
It is a fundamental for kernel patch submission.

> I am just curious on the preferred sequence to fix the affected implementation details.
> 
> 1. I imagine that my questionable update suggestion "[PATCH v2 08/10] staging: ks7010:
>    Replace three printk() calls by pr_err()" can be skipped and the remaining logging
>    calls will be improved somehow a bit later.
> 
> Or:
> 
> 2. Do you want a resend of this whole patch series?

I am not an upstream path.
Greg KH generally serves that function here.
My suggestion would be to resend the entire patchset as V(n+1).
> It might be that I can occasionally become picky to check if other contributors
> insist on the usage of a specific error message.

You can be prone to understatement.