linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86, perf, uncore: Don't make MSR uncore depend on PCI uncore

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]

Message-ID: <20150618224828.GP25760@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:48:28 -0700
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86, perf, uncore: Don't make MSR uncore depend on
 PCI uncore

> So now we return success, if nothing is there or stuff failed?

Right.

> 
> One possible solution is to split the initcall and have one
> for uncore_pci and one for uncode_msr, but that does not work well if
> you want to make it a module.
> 
> But we should at least have some indication, what worked and what went
> wrong instead of unconditionally returning success.

Nobody uses the return value for builtin drivers (short of one
debug printk). It would not load the module, but right now we don't
have a module.

Generally it's a bad idea to print something when a probe doesn't work,
as that just leads to lots of dmesg spam for large monolithic kernels.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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/