linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] staging: lustre: lnet: lnet: checkpatch.pl fixes

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 22 May 2015 07:06:47 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:	Michael Shuey <shuey@...due.edu>
cc:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	"Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@...el.com>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, HPDD-discuss@...1.01.org,
	lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] staging: lustre: lnet: lnet: checkpatch.pl
 fixes

On Thu, 21 May 2015, Michael Shuey wrote:

> That's a task (of many) I've been putting on the back burner until the code
> is cleaner.  It's also a HUGE change, since there are debug macros
> everywhere, and they all check a #define'd mask to see if they should fire,
> and the behavior is likely governed by parts of the lustre user land tools
> as well.
>
> Suggestions are welcome.  Do other parts of the linux kernel define complex
> debugging macros like these, or is this a lustre-ism?  Any suggestions on
> how to handle this more in line with existing drivers?

Once you decide what to do, you can use Coccinelle to make the changes for
you.  So you shouldn't be put off by the number of code sites to change.

The normal functions are pr_err, pr_warn, etc.  Perhaps you can follow
Joe's suggestions if you really need something more complicated.

julia
>
> --
> Mike Shuey
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 21 May 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 15:50 -0400, Mike Shuey wrote:
> > > > Fix many checkpatch.pl warnings.
> > > []
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c
> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c
> > > []
> > > > @@ -99,38 +99,42 @@ lnet_connect_console_error(int rc, lnet_nid_t
> peer_nid,
> > > >     switch (rc) {
> > > >     /* "normal" errors */
> > > >     case -ECONNREFUSED:
> > > > -           CNETERR("Connection to %s at host %pI4h on port %d was
> refused: check that Lustre is running on that node.\n",
> > > > -                   libcfs_nid2str(peer_nid),
> > > > -                   &peer_ip, peer_port);
> > > > +           CNETERR(
> > > > +                   "Connection to %s at host %pI4h on port %d was
> refused: check that Lustre is running on that node.\n",
> > > > +                   libcfs_nid2str(peer_nid), &peer_ip, peer_port);
> > >
> > > These are not improvements and checkpatch messages aren't dicta.
> > >
> > > Please don't convert code unless the conversion makes it better
> > > for a human reader.
> > >
> > > These don't.
> >
> > I haven't looked into it, but perhaps there is a standard kernel printing
> > function that these could be converted to directly?
> >
> > julia
>
>