linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/9] perf util: Get rid of read_or

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: <1363744741.6345.4.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:59:01 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] perf util: Get rid of read_or_die() in
 trace-event-read.c

On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 10:24 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:

> >> @@ -61,8 +61,10 @@ static int do_read(int fd, void *buf, int size)
> >>  		if (repipe) {
> >>  			int retw = write(STDOUT_FILENO, buf, ret);
> >>  
> >> -			if (retw <= 0 || retw != ret)
> >> -				die("repiping input file");
> >> +			if (retw <= 0 || retw != ret) {
> >> +				pr_debug("repiping input file");
> >
> > Again, why debug and not err?
> 
> Well, there's a pr_err() at the caller of top-level trace_report() in
> case of error.  So if we use pr_err() there'll be multiple error message
> for one failure and I don't think it's so helpful to normal users.  If
> one really wants to know what happens inside, she will set -v to see
> this low-level debug message.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 

I haven't looked at the context of all the changes as to where they are
called from. I'm fine if we have a methodology of having pr_err() at the
top level and pr_debug() within the nested code. It looked to me that
the choices were somewhat random, but then again, I was missing context
to the code.

As long as a pr_err() that gives the user enough information to know
what went wrong is displayed, I'm fine with other errors using
pr_debug().

-- Steve


--
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/