linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] Add the "verbose" module option.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <53DFBE8D.5050707@inwind.it>
Date:	Mon, 04 Aug 2014 19:10:37 +0200
From:	Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@...ind.it>
To:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bryan@...troute.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Add the "verbose" module option.

On 08/04/2014 10:46 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Le Sunday 03 August 2014 à 18:36 +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli a écrit :
>> On 08/03/2014 05:52 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2014 17:12:57 +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>>>> On 08/03/2014 04:12 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>>>>> +	    (verbose > 0 && level >= 0)) {
>>>>>> +		print_temp("CPU-temp: ", temp );
>>>>>> +		if (casetemp)
>>>>>> +			print_temp(", Case: ", casetemp );
>>>>>> +		if (level >= 0)
>>>>>> +			printk(", Fan: %d (tuned %+d)\n", 11-level,
>>>>>> +				x.fan_level-level );
>>>>>> +		else
>>>>>> +			printk(", Fan: %d (tuned +0)\n",x.fan_level);
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you can do without the "tuned +0" which doesn't add much value.
>>>>
>>>> Me too. But the old driver does the same, so I preferred to 
>>>> leave it as is.
>>>
>>> I looked at the code again and no, I can't see the old code doing that.
>>> It has "tuned %+d" only in tune_fan() which is only called if
>>> level >= 0. The other printk (when tune_fan isn't called) doesn't have
>>> a "tuned" part.
>>
>> This is taken from an old log of a v3.2 kernel (no changes here):
>>
>> [  886.510879] CPU-temp: 55.4 C, Case: 33.1 C,  Fan: 0 (tuned -11)
>> [  910.522869] CPU-temp: 56.0 C, Case: 33.5 C,  Fan: 0 (tuned +0)
>> [  958.546880] CPU-temp: 57.0 C, Case: 34.1 C,  Fan: 3 (tuned +3)
>>
>> in the code if level <0, then there is no update in the log. But if
>> level >0 and level is equal to the previous one, this leads to
>> have "tuned +0"...
> 
> I agree with that.
> 
>> But I have to be honest: I have not fully understand how 
>> "level" is computed.
> 
> I agree with that too :/
> 
>> The printk without "(tuned %+d)" is never called because 
>> LOG_TEMP was #define(d) equal to 0.
> 
> And this is what your second printk is replacing. So it should not have
> the "(tuned *)" either.
> 
I removed the printk(s) from tune_fan(); the ones leaved replaced 
both the ones inside tune_fan() and the ones outside.

Anyway, Benjamin which is your opinion ? 
For me is equal to remove or to leave "(tune +0)" (when the tuning is equal to 0).
Jean think it is better to remove "(tune +0)" (when the tuning is equal to 0).
So if you haven't any objection I will remove it.

-- 
gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli (kreijackATinwind.it>
Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D  17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5
--
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/