linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] printk: Modify operators of printed

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: <20170710135144.GN23069@pathway.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:51:44 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Pierre Kuo <vichy.kuo@...il.com>
Cc:     sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, joe@...ches.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: Modify operators of printed_len

On Sat 2017-07-08 10:51:13, Pierre Kuo wrote:
> In 8b1742c9c207, we remove printk-recursion detection code in
> vprintk_emit(), where it is the first place that printed_len calculated.
> After removing above detection, it seems we can directly assign the
> result of log_output to printed_len.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Kuo <vichy.kuo@...il.com>

Great catch!

I just noticed that the same applies also to text_len
variable. Well, it was caused by another commit ddb9baa822265b55
("printk: report lost messages in printk safe/nmi contexts").
Could you please send a patch for this as well?

I would personally fix both variables in a single patch. But
I do not have a strong opinion about it.

This seems to be your first patch sent to the kernel mailing list.
Let me share some hints that might help you to handle more complex
patchsets ;-)

There is a standard format how to reference older commits. It is
'commit <12+ chars of sha1> ("<title line>")', see my comment above
for an example.

A good practice is to run ./scripts/checkpatch.pl <patch> before
you send the patch. Well, you need to use a common sense and ignore
false positives or hints that make a particular patch less readable
in the end.

Also it is handy to bump the version of the patch when it is
updated, e.g. use [PATCH v2] in the subject. People also
summarize changes against the previous version(s) below
the --- line. Well, this is more useful when there is a longer
delay between the versions and the changes are more complicated.

Best Regards,
Petr