linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] jffs2: Convert most D1/D2 macros to jffs2

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: <1330966615.3140.6.camel@joe2Laptop>
Date:	Mon, 05 Mar 2012 08:56:55 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	dedekind1@...il.com
Cc:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] jffs2: Convert most D1/D2 macros to jffs2_dbg

On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 18:30 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 15:56 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> I would just kill all the levels and left only the first one - others
> are not useful. This FS is in the kernel for ages and it is safe to
> assume it is robust enough to require no level 2. And change the Kconfig
> correspondingly.
> 
> I would accept that to my l2 tree, although the final word is from
> dwmw2, of course.

Separate patch I think.

> Would it please be possible to make the patch which introduces jffs2_dbg
> macros be separate? It is very difficult to find the definition (most
> interesting in this patch) while looking at the e-mail.

Shrug.  Maybe if David W wants it so.

> How about make one more step forward and remove this prefix from all the
> messages and make it to be part of the 'jffs2_dbg' macro?

Maybe in another patch.

[]
> > +				jffs2_dbg(1, "%s(): SIGSTOP received\n",
> > +					  __func__);

				jffs2_dbg(1, "%s(): SIGSTOP received\n",
> May become a one-liner here and in many other places.

Goes beyond 80 chars.

> > +				jffs2_dbg(1, "%s(): SIGKILL received\n",
> > +					  __func__);
> 
> Ditto, and there are many other places.

Same as above.
 
> > -	D1(printk(KERN_DEBUG "jffs2_erase_block(): erase block %#08x (range %#08x-%#08x)\n",
> > -				jeb->offset, jeb->offset, jeb->offset + c->sector_size));
> > +	jffs2_dbg(1, "%s(): erase block %#08x (range %#08x-%#08x)\n",
> > +		  __func__,
> > +		  jeb->offset, jeb->offset, jeb->offset + c->sector_size);
> 
> Probably lines can be joined?

Going to have that many lines anyway.

> >  				if (jeb == c->gcblock) {
> > -					D1(printk(KERN_DEBUG "Expanding down to cover frag (0x%x-0x%x) in gcblock at %08x\n",
> > -						  frag->ofs, frag->ofs+frag->size, ref_offset(raw)));
> > +					jffs2_dbg(1, "Expanding down to cover frag (0x%x-0x%x) in gcblock at %08x\n",
> > +						  frag->ofs,
> > +						  frag->ofs + frag->size,
> > +						  ref_offset(raw));
> 
> Lines can be joined, and in other places as well.

Not really.  Try it.

> > -						  frag->ofs, frag->ofs+frag->size, jeb->offset));
> > +					jffs2_dbg(1, "Not expanding down to cover frag (0x%x-0x%x) in clean block %08x\n",
> > +						  frag->ofs,
> > +						  frag->ofs + frag->size,
> > +						  jeb->offset);
> 
> > -		D1(printk(KERN_DEBUG "Obsoleting previously unchecked node at 0x%08x of len %x: ", ref_offset(ref), freed_len));
> > +			jffs2_dbg(1, "Obsoleting previously unchecked node at 0x%08x of len %x\n",
> > +				  ref_offset(ref), freed_len);
> 
> What happened to the indentation?

Incorrect before, correct now.
It's still in a D1 block.


--
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/