linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 03/10] mux: minimal mux subsystem and gpio-based mux controller

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, 18 Apr 2017 19:23:11 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 03/10] mux: minimal mux subsystem and gpio-based mux
 controller

On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 23:53 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2017-04-18 13:44, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:59:50PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
[]
> > > > > +	ret = device_add(&mux_chip->dev);
> > > > > +	if (ret < 0)
> > > > > +		dev_err(&mux_chip->dev,
> > > > > +			"device_add failed in mux_chip_register: %d\n", ret);
> > > > 
> > > > Did you run checkpatch.pl in strict mode on this new file?  Please do so :)
> > > 
> > > I did, and did it again just to be sure, and I do not get any complaints.
> > > So, what's wrong?
> > 
> > You list the function name in the printk string, it should complain
> > that __func__ should be used.  Oh well, it's just a perl script, it
> > doesn't always catch everything.
> > isn't always correct :)
> 
> Ah, ok.

Also, please use the checkpatch in -next as it has a
slightly better mechanism to identify functions and
uses in strings.

$ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl ~/1.patch
WARNING: Prefer using '"%s...", __func__' to using 'mux_chip_register', this function's name, in a string
#302: FILE: drivers/mux/mux-core.c:134:
+			"device_add failed in mux_chip_register: %d\n", ret);