linux-kernel - Re: staging: ks7010: Replace three printk() calls by pr

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: <a6b96b51-a602-f22d-b853-0ee2f142fb67@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Sat, 13 Aug 2016 13:10:08 +0200
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: staging: ks7010: Replace three printk() calls by pr_err()

>> Prefer usage of the macro "pr_err" over the interface "printk".
> Not correct

A checkpatch warning like "PREFER_PR_LEVEL" can point additional possibilities out
for this use case.
Would you like to introduce any of the higher level logging functions instead?


>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c
> []
>> @@ -998,11 +998,11 @@ static int ks7010_sdio_probe(struct sdio_func *func,
>>  	/* private memory allocate */
>>  	netdev = alloc_etherdev(sizeof(*priv));
>>  	if (netdev == NULL) {
>> -		printk(KERN_ERR "ks7010 : Unable to alloc new net device\n");
>> +		pr_err(pr_fmt("Unable to alloc new net device\n"));
> 
> All of these pr_fmt uses are redundant as pr_err already does pr_fmt

Thanks for your reminder.

Would you accept that another update will be appended to the discussed patch series?


> alloc_etherdev already does a dump_stack so the OOM isn't useful.

Does this information indicate that this printk() (or pr_err()) call
should be deleted?

Regards,
Markus