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:	Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:51:12 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	david@...g.hm
Cc:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] ext4: Use pr_fmt and pr_<level>

On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 18:28 -0700, david@...g.hm wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:44:10AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> >> This stuff ain't whitespace.
> >>> I'll have to respectfully disagree with you.  For ext4, as far as I am
> > concerned, changing printk(KERN_INFO, ...) to pr_info(...) is *purely*
> > a whitespace-level change.
> Joe, if everything did change, what difference would it make?

Hi David.

> just being a consistant style doesn't matter much,

Perhaps we disagree on the value of consistency.
I believe it's a small but measurable effect and it
can reduce overall ongoing defect rates.

Is it DoublePlus_important_?  No, definitely not.

To me using pr_<level> is a bit like using const
or marking sections devinitconst.

It hardly matters, but it's good form and it can
free up some working memory in ram limited systems.

> but if there is some 
> functionality that would be possible with pr_info(...) that would not be 
> possible with printk(KERN_INFO, ...), there may be more reason to change.

Right now, it's just macros over printk so it's pretty
trivial.  I do intend to convert pr_<level> macros to
functions eventually to reduce code size ~.5% overall.
That reduction does depend on quantity of CONFIG_<FOO>
options enabled of course.  Enable everything, I think
it's ~.01%.  I haven't done it in quite awhile though
so that's a guess.

It matters a tiny bit more for flash or ram limited
systems.

Some driver optimizations like the rtlwifi reduction
in -next commit 481b9606ec might have more of an
impact though for those systems.

So, it depends...

cheers, Joe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists