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  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, 28 Oct 2017 13:04:25 +1100 (AEDT)
From:   Finn Thain <>
To:     Kars de Jong <>
cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] m68k/mac: More printk modernization

On Sat, 28 Oct 2017, I wrote:

> > Any particular reason why you didn't use pr_debug() here? I'm guessing 
> > it's because this is not a known pointer value?
> > 
> It's because the call to psc_debug_dump() is already conditional on 
> #ifdef DEBUG_PSC.
> Having the printk conditional on both DEBUG and DEBUG_PSC would be 
> annoying. And I didn't want an unconditional call to psc_debug_dump() 
> because I think PSC_DEBUG could become more useful given that PSC 
> support is woefully incomplete.

Perhaps PSC_DEBUG should be scrapped in favour of DEBUG. Presently 
DEBUG_PSC is set and I think that's useful as long as those drivers are 
incomplete. So we would end up with this:

#define DEBUG

#include ...

static void psc_debug_dump(void)

void __init psc_init(void)

In this version, the "#define DEBUG" at the top of the file has obscure 
side effects (not just in printk.h) considering all of the headers that 
get included, and their includes, and so on. I still prefer the patch that 
I sent.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists