linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] coresight: Add better messages for coresight

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:	Wed, 1 Jun 2016 10:34:52 +0100
From:	Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] coresight: Add better messages for coresight_timeout

On 31/05/16 18:58, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 12:57 +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> When we encounter a timeout waiting for a status change via
>> coresight_timeout, the caller always print the offset which
>> was tried. This is pretty much useless as it doesn't specify
>> the bit position we wait for. Also, one needs to lookup the
>> TRM to figure out, what was wrong. This patch changes all
>> such error messages to print something more meaningful.
>
> trivia:
>
> Perhaps consistently using
> 	dev_err(dev, "timeout while waiting for %s\n", "<foo>");
> could make the object code a bit smaller.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etb10.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etb10.c
> []
>> @@ -184,8 +184,7 @@ static void etb_disable_hw(struct etb_drvdata *drvdata)
>>
>>   	if (coresight_timeout(drvdata->base, ETB_FFCR, ETB_FFCR_BIT, 0)) {
>>   		dev_err(drvdata->dev,
>> -			"timeout observed when probing at offset %#x\n",
>> -			ETB_FFCR);
>> +			"timeout while waiting for completion of Manual Flush\n");
>
> ie:
> 		dev_err(drvdata->dev,
> 			"timeout while waiting for %s\n",
> 			"completion of Manual Flush");
>
> but that depends on how many of these coresight
> files are compiled and linked.

Or we could move the timeout message to coresight_timeout(). The only disadvantage is
if a caller is OK with silent timeouts. How about :

int coresight_timeout(void *base, u32 offset, u32 bit, u32 val, char *info)

where the message can be suppressed if info == NULL ?

Mathieu, your thoughts ?

>
> There is a while/when usage difference in some of
> the output messages.

Right, I will fix them. This was a merged version of individual patches, hence
the changes.

Cheers
Suzuki