linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] mfd: dm355evm_msp: Refactoring for add

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160809153615.GU5243@dell>
Date:	Tue, 9 Aug 2016 16:36:15 +0100
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mfd: dm355evm_msp: Refactoring for add_child()

On Tue, 09 Aug 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> > But the change-log in this patch says "I did some stuff".
> > What stuff did you change?  Which review comments did you
> > tend to?
> 
> I imagine that I could increase the description granularity
> to a detail level which you might also not like.

Right.  A certain level of common sense needs to be exercised.

> >>>> +put_device:
> >>>> +	platform_device_put(pdev);
> >>>> +	dev_err(&client->dev, "failed to add device %s\n", name);
> >>>
> >>> ... and remove this line.
> >>
> >> Do you really want that this error message should be deleted?
> >>
> >> How does this response fit to your request to introduce such a message
> >> for the function "add_numbered_child" (on 2016-06-08)?
> >> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1162299.html
> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/8/467
> > 
> > You've lost the context.
> 
> I interpreted the suggested message adjustments as separate changes.
> So I wondered about a different handling for the Linux modules
> "dm355evm_msp" and "twl-core".

In what way?  The coding standards should be the same.

> > The "..." is meant to intimate that it
> > follows on from a previous comment.  In this case:
> > 
> >>  > status = platform_device_add_data(pdev, pdata, pdata_len);
> >>  > if (status < 0) {
> >>  > 	dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "can't add platform_data\n");
> >>
> >>  Please take the opportunity to convert these to dev_err()s.
> > 
> > So, convert the specific dev_dbg() calls to dev_err() and remove the
> > contentless one at the bottom.
> 
> It seems then that you would like to get rid of an error message
> at the end while increasing the importance of a related information.

Yes.  Remove the pointless error message at the bottom and provide an
informative one, describing why things went wrong.  Remember; common
sense often prevails.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog