[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MdM=G=AP5My4KQ-kP_2xEHM_UPNYqEfPUO7aTAo6cULaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 15:59:15 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] regmap: don't create the debugfs entries if locking
is disabled
2017-12-13 15:54 GMT+01:00 Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
>> User space can initiate concurrent access to regmap over debugfs and,
>> if the locking is disabled, we can't protect it. Don't create the
>> debugfs entries at all in this case.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
>
>> + dev_dbg(map->dev, "locking disabled - not creating debugfs entries\n");
>
> I dunno about level (OK debug seems good because we are still talking
> about debug), though message might be slightly confusing (if driver
> itself is using debugfs for its own purposes), so, I would suggest to
> add
> "regmap: locking...".
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
Good point, I think "regmap locking disabled..." would be even better
in this case.
Thanks,
Bartosz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists