linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] rbtree_test: use pr_info for module prefix in messages

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]

Date:	Thu, 21 Mar 2013 20:29:07 -0700
From:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
Cc:	Shuah Khan <shuahkhan@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] rbtree_test: use pr_info for module prefix in messages

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 11:54 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Davidlohr Bueso
>> <davidlohr.bueso@...com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 10:29 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com> wrote:
>> >> > This provides nicer message output. Since it seems more appropriate
>> >> > for the nature of this module, also use KERN_INFO instead of other
>> >> > levels.
>> >>
>> >> Why are you changing the ALERTs to INFO?
>> >
>> > Because of the nature of the messages. They don't justify having a
>> > KERN_ALERT level (requiring immediate attention), and it seems a lot
>> > more suitable to use INFO instead.
>> >
>>
>> Hmm. I see interval_tree_test using the same alerts. It almost looks
>> like the start and end of a test are meant to be alerts. I am not
>> saying it shouldn't be changed, however looking for a stronger reason
>> than "it seems a lot more suitable to use INFO instead". Are there any
>> use-cases in which KERN_ALERTs cause problems?
>>
>
> No 'issue' particularly, just common sense. In any case I have no
> problem reverting the changes back to KERN_ALERT, no big deal.
>
> Andrew, Michel, do you have any preferences? I'm mostly interested in
> patch 3/3, do you have any objections?

Sorry for the late reply - I have a lot of upstream email to catch up to.

No objection to the change but I also have to say I'm not quite sure
what's the motivation - it'd be easier if you had a 0/3 mail to
explain the issue. In particular, I'm not sure if you've been trying
to use the test compiled in rather than as a module (which is all I've
ever built it as myself :)

-- 
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
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/