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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:24:38 +0200 From: Tanya Brokhman <tlinder@...eaurora.org> To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> CC: dedekind1@...il.com, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH V6] UBI: Extend UBI layer debug/messaging capabilities On 11/10/2014 7:57 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 18:37 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> Am 03.11.2014 um 14:58 schrieb Tanya Brokhman: >>> If there is more then one UBI device mounted, there is no way to >>> distinguish between messages from different UBI devices. >>> Add device number to all ubi layer message types. > > Adding "error" and "warning" to the message logs is > duplicative to the KERN_<LEVEL> logging information. > >>> Changes from V5: >>> - Added ptr verification @ ubi_err/ubi_msg/ubi_warn >>> Removed extra printing of ubi number >>> Removed new messages. > > Did you all ever look at what I posted? I did. Its not my place to re-post your change in my patch. I personally prefer it the way I've done it but it's just a matter of opinion and personal preference. Artem took this one in... > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/14/280 > > smaller code, consistent prefixing, consistent with > typical kernel style, etc. > >> While testing I noticed that the log output looks quite different. >> >> e.g. >> [ 26.564111] UBI-0: ubi_attach_mtd_dev:default fastmap pool size: 256 >> [ 26.565438] UBI-0: ubi_attach_mtd_dev:default fastmap WL pool size: 128 > > If __func__ is really desired, it's generally better to > put a space after the "%s:", __func__ so there's visual > separation between the prefixes and the content. > > I agree that emitting function names isn't particularly > useful. I have to disagree here, but again - this is personal preference. > > (and Richard, do please remember to trim your posts, > you sent > 100KB of unnecessary quoted stuff) > Thanks, Tanya Brokhman -- Qualcomm Israel, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- 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