linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] gpio: gpiolib: Print error number if gpio hog failed

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: <56E0584B.9050607@wwwdotorg.org>
Date:	Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:07:23 -0700
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
	Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
Cc:	linus.walleij@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com,
	mark.rutland@....com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] gpio: gpiolib: Print error number if gpio hog failed

On 03/08/2016 08:32 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 08 March 2016 07:52 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:32:05PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 9 +++++----
>>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>>> index bc788b9..7575ebb 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>>> @@ -2621,15 +2621,16 @@ int gpiod_hog(struct gpio_desc *desc, const
>>> char *name,
>>>       local_desc = gpiochip_request_own_desc(chip, hwnum, name);
>>>       if (IS_ERR(local_desc)) {
>>> -        pr_err("requesting hog GPIO %s (chip %s, offset %d) failed\n",
>>> -               name, chip->label, hwnum);
>>> +        status = PTR_ERR(local_desc);
>>> +        pr_err("requesting hog GPIO %s, chip %s, offset %d failed
>>> %d\n",
>>> +               name, chip->label, hwnum, status);
>> I find this type of format hard to read. I prefer a semi-colon to
>> separate the message from the failure reason (i.e. error code).
>>
>> Besides that I don't understand why you're dropping the parentheses
>> around the "chip %s, offset %d", I found that easier on the eye.
>
> I did to accommodate the  3 extra character ( %d) for string format on
> that line as it was already near to 80 column.
> Just did not want to split in multiple lines.

Note that strings shouldn't be split across lines since it makes it 
harder to grep for them. This is one case where the 80-column limit 
isn't strict, within reason.