linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm: Simplify logging macros, convert DRM_NOTE to DRM

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:   Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:20:55 -0400
From:   Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>
To:     Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm: Simplify logging macros, convert DRM_NOTE to DRM_NOTICE

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com> wrote:
> On 27 September 2016 at 17:43, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 17:36 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>> On 27 September 2016 at 17:04, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>>> > On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 11:58 -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
>>> > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>>> > > > Use a bit more consistent style with kernel loglevels
>>> > > I'm not convinced this is worth doing if we're going to keep the
>>> > > WARN/WARNING discrepancy, and I don't think we should switch DRM_WARN
>>> > > to DRM_WARNING since it's so widely used.
>>> > There is no DRM_WARN inconsistency.
>>> DRM_WARN is to DRM_WARNING like DRM_INFO is to DRM_INFORMATION and
>>> DRM_NOTE is to DRM_NOTICE...
>>
>> DRM_INFORMATION doesn't exist in the kernel tree.
>>
>>> is what I'm thinking and seemingly so
>>> does Sean. Fwiw that part seem cosmetic/unrelated to the rest of the
>>> patch, so it might be worth keeping separate ?
>>
>> To me, simplifying the macro means using the common kernel
>> macro forms.
>>
> "unify" might be better, but I agree.
>
> Either way there's no point in elaborating on the point me(Sean?)
> meant since it's just going to get shoot down like a dog ;-)

Yeah, I can see both sides, and I suppose I don't really care either
way. Given that DRM_NOTE/NOTICE is only used 7 places (in one file), I
doubt there are going to be any strong feelings.

Sean

>
> Regards,
> Emil