linux-kernel - Re: [Fwd: Re: [PATCH 4/5]PCI: x86 MMCONFIG: introduce pcibios_fix_bus

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, 20 Dec 2007 09:19:14 -0800
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	Tony Camuso <tcamuso@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [PATCH 4/5]PCI: x86 MMCONFIG: introduce
	pcibios_fix_bus_scan()]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 07:26:17AM -0500, Tony Camuso wrote:
>>> +
>>> +#define CHECK_MMCFG_STR_1 \
>>> +	"PCI: Device at %04x:%02x.%02x.%x is not MMCONFIG compliant.\n"
>>> +#define CHECK_MMCFG_STR_2 \
>>> +	"PCI: Bus %04x:%02x and its descendents cannot use MMCONFIG.\n"
>> Why define these if they are only used in one place?
>
> If you object, I will be happy to move them into the routine body
> without the defines. I agree that It does look inconsistent to have
> these strings defined and other strings embedded in the routine body.

Yes, please fix this.

>> Also, as you use dev_info(), I think you are duplicating some of the
>> information in the resulting printk(), right?
> Actually, no. The strings do not contain redundant info. The pr_info
> routine is just a macro for printk(KERN_INFO ...)

Ah, sorry, I was thinking you were using dev_info(), which is what you
should be using instead anyway :)

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/