linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] platform/x86: thinkpad

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: <1494375875.1064702.971453736.29BB0B11@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date:   Tue, 09 May 2017 21:24:35 -0300
From:   Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <ibm-acpi@....eng.br>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        ibm-acpi-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: Join string literals
 back

On Tue, May 9, 2017, at 14:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 14:10 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > While here, print negative error without changing a sign as it is a
> > > common pattern in the kernel.
> > 
> > A separate patch for this would be better: it would be easier to
> > actually check that no functional changes crept in by mistake.
> 
> It doesn't make sense to me. It would touch same lines of code I do
> already here and it's only one place, see below.

I had to go line-by-line looking for the darn thing, instead of just
compiling before-and-after and checking for an unchanged  object file.

> > >  	rc = fan_set_enable();
> > >  	if (rc < 0) {
> > > -		pr_err("fan watchdog: error %d while enabling fan,
> > > "
> > > -		       "will try again later...\n", -rc);
> > > +		pr_err("fan watchdog: error %d while enabling fan,
> > > will try again later...\n",
> > > +		       rc);

Yeah. This one.  I don't have a problem with this change at all (I acked
it), but it took some effort to find the nail in the hailstack.

-- 
  Henrique Holschuh