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]

Date:	Sat, 13 Aug 2016 22:12:20 +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()

> You might have noticed I also wrote in the same reply:
> 
> "All of these pr_fmt uses are redundant as pr_err already does pr_fmt"

I admit that I made another software development mistake there. - It might not matter much
when a final fix could be to get rid of the three affected logging calls for example.

> It is not just principle.
> It is a fundamental for kernel patch submission.

I hope that this view supports still the reordering for update steps after some discussion.

> I am not an upstream path.
> Greg KH generally serves that function here.
> My suggestion would be to resend the entire patchset as V(n+1).

I am curious if it would make sense to reduce the mail traffic a bit by finding out
which software changes can be accepted already.

Regards,
Markus