linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 3/4] dw_dmac: change {dev

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: <1350548131.3568.6.camel@smile>
Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:15:31 +0300
From:	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:	balbi@...com
Cc:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.linux@...il.com>,
	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, spear-devel <spear-devel@...t.st.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/4] dw_dmac: change {dev_}printk() to corresponding
 macros

On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 16:53 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: 
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 04:36:58PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 16:09 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/dw_dmac.c b/drivers/dma/dw_dmac.c

> > > > @@ -492,10 +491,8 @@ static void dwc_handle_error(struct dw_dma *dw, struct dw_dma_chan *dwc)
> > > >  	 * controller flagged an error instead of scribbling over
> > > >  	 * random memory locations.
> > > >  	 */
> > > > -	dev_printk(KERN_CRIT, chan2dev(&dwc->chan),
> > > > -			"Bad descriptor submitted for DMA!\n");
> > > > -	dev_printk(KERN_CRIT, chan2dev(&dwc->chan),
> > > > -			"  cookie: %d\n", bad_desc->txd.cookie);
> > > > +	dev_crit(chan2dev(&dwc->chan), "Bad descriptor submitted for DMA!\n");
> > > > +	dev_crit(chan2dev(&dwc->chan), "  cookie: %d\n", bad_desc->txd.cookie);
> > > 
> > > now this is critical, indeed. I would suggest using dev_WARN_ONCE() so
> > > that it's noisy enough to catch the failing user.
> > To this and upper comment, there is an explanation why it's critical. I
> > guess the WARN_ONCE is not good enough, for example if we have more than
> > one user making such noise.
> 
> then use dev_WARN()
I can't see how dev_WARN could be more useful here than the dev_crit. In
current message we have channel and cookie to link back to the user.
What does WARN add meaningful?

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
--
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/