linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PATCH] driver core patches for 3.5-rc1

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120522220820.GA12837@kroah.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2012 15:08:20 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] driver core patches for 3.5-rc1 - try 2

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 02:58:47PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> While there are several things I like about the
> printk modifications, (binary header, delta time,
> slightly better partial message deinterleaving,
> global msg_id, kmsg is ok too), I am concerned
> about the utility and expectations for the new
> [v]printk_emit functions.
> 
> I think it is not really ready to be merged
> at this time.
> 
> The commit sequencing was unclean.

Yes, but the build was never broken, the system always worked, and the
end result was agreed apon by everyone as a nice addition.

> The original commit originally required KERN_CONT
> and it was modified by another commit to return
> to the current behavior.
> 
> What really are the expectations and true use-cases
> for [v]printk_emit?

What's wrong with the existing use case?  Since when do we write
use-cases for kernel functions?

> How is it really better that what is available now?
> 
> Perhaps it would be better to respin all the
> printk modifications without adding [v]printk_emit
> and have the [v]printk_emit bits debated a bit more.

I'm always glad to review patches, but to just propose something that
works to be reverted without a patch to replace the functionality, isn't
ok.

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/