linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ramoops: use module parameters instead of platform data if not available

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]

Message-ID: <4DE10436.4070603@gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 28 May 2011 16:18:30 +0200
From:	Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
To:	Stevie Trujillo <stevie.trujillo@...il.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kyungmin.park@...sung.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ramoops: use module parameters instead of platform data
 if not available

Il 28/05/2011 12:05, Stevie Trujillo ha scritto:
> On Saturday 28 May 2011 11:01:12 you wrote:
>> From: Marco Stornelli<marco.stornelli@...il.com>
>>
>> Use generic module parameters instead of platform data, if platform
>> data are not available. This limitation has been introduced with
>> commit c3b92ce9e75f6353104fc7f8e32fb9fdb2550ad0.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli<marco.stornelli@...il.com>
>> CC: Kyungmin Park<kyungmin.park@...sung.com>
>> Reported-by: Stevie Trujillo<stevie.trujillo@...il.com>
>
> Nice work, I think this will fix my problems :) I have some comments - not
> sure how many of them are sane.
>
> I think the indent is wrong (mixed tabs + spaces) in ramoops_init. Tried to
> fix it, but my email client just made it worse :p

Oops, my fault, I'll resend the patch.

>
> With this patch, ramoops_platform_data takes precedence over module
> parameters. Should it maybe be the other way?
>

I don't like the "user overwrite kernel configuration" pattern :) At the 
end, for archs with a device tree source it's possible to change the 
value there.

> I think you can just statically allocate ramoops_platform_data, since it's
> only 2x(unsigned long)? You will use one more long in .data, but less in
> .text?

If some other field it's added to the struct, we already use the right 
policy.

>
> Not related to the patch: Should the printks end with "\n"? If i do
> printk(KERN_ERR "a"); printk(KERN_ERR "b"); I get two lines, but with
> printk(KERN_ERR "a"); printk("b"); they end up on the same line. So if another
> driver did printk without KERN_ after ramoops, they would end up on same line?
>

I'll add the \n with a separate patch.

Marco
--
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/