linux-kernel - Re: [alsa-devel] Improving or replacing snd

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: <s5ha9nbinre.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
Date:	Fri, 31 May 2013 09:58:45 +0200
From:	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] Improving or replacing snd_printk()

At Fri, 31 May 2013 00:38:01 -0700,
Joe Perches wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 09:35 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Fri, 31 May 2013 00:30:09 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 09:23 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > At Fri, 31 May 2013 00:06:07 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 08:37 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > > > I think most of snd_printd() and snd_printdd() can be kept as is.
> > > > > > These are just debug messages, after all.
> > > > > Some of those are emitted at levels other than KERN_DEBUG.
> > > > > I think that odd.
> > > > Yeah, they aren't good, but it's a different topic.
> > > 
> > > Not really, I think it's systemic and fallout from
> > > accretive implementation rather than design.
> > 
> > Maybe.
> > 
> > But you shouldn't mix up with the fix for the missing verbosity and
> > the fix for wrong KERN_ prefix, at least, in the patch level.  They
> > need to be fixed individually.
> 
> I think that's best too.
> 
> I don't see the complexity/hell in adding functions
> for specific types of struct * to reduce the complexity
> of the code though.  Centralizing those indirections
> into functions also generally reduces overall code size.

I don't mind to add the struct pointer to new snd_*() -- if we really
introduce them.  The bigger question is whether we really need to
introduce such, and if yes, what variants.  And for that, I don't
think we need to add many functions.  Maybe snd_card_<level>() would
be good.  But others don't seem to make sense to me (remember that I
suggest dropping CONFIG_SND_VERBOSE_PRINTK).


Takashi
--
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/