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  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:	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:18:38 +0200
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To:	Tanya Brokhman <tlinder@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	hujianyang@...wei.com, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBI: Extend UBI layer debug/messaging capabilities -
 cosmetics

On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 13:06 +0200, Tanya Brokhman wrote:
>  
>  /* Normal UBI messages */
>  #define ubi_msg(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_notice("UBI-%d: %s:" fmt "\n", \
> -                                        ubi->ubi_num, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +                               (ubi ? ubi->ubi_num : UBI_MAX_DEVICES), \
> +                               __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>  /* UBI warning messages */
>  #define ubi_warn(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_warn("UBI-%d warning: %s: " fmt "\n", \
> -                                       ubi->ubi_num, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +                               (ubi ? ubi->ubi_num : UBI_MAX_DEVICES), \
> +                               __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>  /* UBI error messages */
>  #define ubi_err(ubi, fmt, ...) pr_err("UBI-%d error: %s: " fmt "\n", \
> -                                     ubi->ubi_num, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +                               (ubi ? ubi->ubi_num : UBI_MAX_DEVICES), \
> +                               __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)

Why did you make these changes? It is preferable to not add another 'if'
statement to this macro to handle one or 2 cases - much bloat, little
gain.

Could we please avoid this?

>  
> -       if (!ubi->free.rb_node || (ubi->free_count - ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs < 1)) {
> -               ubi_warn(ubi, "Can't get peb for fastmap:anchor=%d, free_cnt=%d, reserved=%d",
> -                        anchor, ubi->free_count, ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs);
> +       if (!ubi->free.rb_node || (ubi->free_count - ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs < 1))
>                 goto out;

The warning looks pretty poor, so I do not mind to remove it, but I
thought your patch is about adding a parameter, but you mix different
kinds of things there. Please, be stricter to the similar UBIFS patch
which you was going to send.


> -               if (kthread_should_stop()) {
> -                       ubi_msg(ubi, "background thread \"%s\" should stop, PID %d",
> -                               ubi->bgt_name, task_pid_nr(current));
> +               if (kthread_should_stop())
>                         break;
> -               }

How about just turning this into a debug message, not removing?

Artem.

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists