linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mac8390: change an error return code and some cleanup, take 4

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: <20100531.081412.27799681.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 31 May 2010 08:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	joe@...ches.com
Cc:	geert@...ux-m68k.org, fthain@...egraphics.com.au,
	p_gortmaker@...oo.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac8390: change an error return code and some cleanup,
 take 4

From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 08:08:13 -0700

> There are many uses of KERN_DEBUG that are reasonable to have
> always enabled.

Doubtful.

pr_debug() makes a ton of sense as currently implemented.
It's for messages that we want both compile time and
run-time control over.

The case we have here in mac8390 seems like it should stay
as pr_info().  Because 1) it's already controlled by a
run-time knob so controlling it even further is confusing
and 2) the message is "informative", it lets the user know
a feature cannot be enabled, thus pr_info().
--
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/