linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Drop debugging leftover trace

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:	Tue, 7 Apr 2015 10:34:04 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Drop debugging leftover trace_printk call

On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 07:26:13 -0700
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 10:10 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 07:01:37 -0700
> > Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > o Please add a test for $realfile !~ m@...nel/trace/@
> > >   or maybe $realfile !~ /(?:trace|tracing)/
> > > o ERROR seems a bit strong, WARN is probably good enough
> > 
> > I'm thinking ERROR is good. There's no reason to have it. In fact, you
> > must never have it. Looking at the other ERROR() conditions, I say this
> 
> Look at trace_printk in fs/ext4/inline.c
> 

Yeah, I've stumbled on that one before and looked and said to myself
"WTF". But as it is masked around DEBUG, I let it slide. I still don't
like it, because it really should be a tracepoint instead. The problem
with trace_printk(), is that it is either all on or all off. You can
not pick and choose, and they clutter the trace.

I may send patches to remove that anyway.

> It's in a section guarded by a CONFIG_FOO_DEBUG
> block.  Is the use there an error?  Perhaps not
> and I think it better if checkpatch ERROR messages
> are more definitive.
> 
> > is just as strong and perhaps even stronger. You have ERROR() for
> > trailing white space. This is much worse than that.
> 
> I'm not much of a fan of that one, nor of most
> of the ERROR uses in checkpatch actually.
> 
> I think it might be better if all of the checkpatch
> whitespace/style related messages were WARN not ERROR.

I agree.

I still rather have this be an ERROR and not a WARN, because I rather
avoid even those that encapsulate it with CONFIG_FOO_DEBUG.

-- Steve


--
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/