linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] pci: add misrouted interrupt error handling

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200808041443.20942.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>
Date:	Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:43:20 -0600
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Cc:	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pci: add misrouted interrupt error handling

On Sunday 03 August 2008 12:02:12 pm James Bottomley wrote:
> +static void pci_note_irq_problem(struct pci_dev *pdev, const char *reason)
> +{
> +	struct pci_dev *parent = to_pci_dev(pdev->dev.parent);
> +
> +	dev_printk(KERN_ERR, &pdev->dev,
> +		   "Potentially misrouted IRQ (Bridge %s %04x:%04x)\n",
> +		   parent->dev.bus_id, parent->vendor, parent->device);

Do you prefer "dev_printk(KERN_ERR, ...)" over "dev_err(...)"?  Easier
to grep for the former, maybe?  If so, should we deprecate "dev_err()"
and friends?  When I converted most of the PCI core to use dev_printk(),
(80ccba1186d48f ...) I used dev_err(), but I don't really care one way
or the other.

Maybe use pci_name(parent)?

I tried to standardize the PCI core on "[%04x/%04x]" for vendor/device ID.

Bjorn

--
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/