linux-kernel - Re: [tip:x86/debug] printk: Make the printk*once() variants return a value

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: <1468087015.8360.103.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Sat, 09 Jul 2016 10:56:55 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, brgerst@...il.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	luto@...capital.net, dvlasenk@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	jpoimboe@...hat.com, bp@...e.de, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/debug] printk: Make the printk*once() variants return
 a value

On Sat, 2016-07-09 at 09:50 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 07:40:48PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > This change isn't described in the commit message and there
> > doesn't seem to be a need to change this.
> How do *you* know? Did *you* actually sit down and build a kernel with
> your proposed change before sending a reply?
> I'm pretty sure you didn't.

defconfigs both with and without CONFIG_PRINTK build
properly with the proposed change to this specific patch.

> Well, there is a very good reason why I made that change but I'm not
> going to tell you.

Borislav, your delightful personality always impresses.
Never change.

If there is a specific reason you know why this 0; value
must be added to a do {} while (0) to statement expression
macro conversion, it'd be good to write that in the
commit message.  It'd also be good to remove the useless
"do {} while (0);" surrounding a single statement.