linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

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: <533b27ea-f1e4-edab-0a35-a4304483d026@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:53:44 -0800
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle
 issues

On 01/23/18 04:11, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> writes:
> 
>> Hi Frank,
>>
>>> Please go back and read the thread for version 1.  Simply resubmitting a
>>> forward port is ignoring that whole conversation.
>>>
>>> There is a lot of good info in that thread.  I certainly learned stuff in it.
>>
>> Yes, I did that and learned stuff, too. My summary of the discussion was:
>>
>> - you mentioned some drawbacks you saw (like the mixture of trace output
>>   and printk output)
>> - most of them look like addressed to me? (e.g. Steven showed a way to redirect
>>   printk to trace)
>> - you posted your version (which was, however, marked as "not user friendly"
>>   even by yourself)
>> - The discussion stalled over having two approaches
>>
>> So, I thought reposting would be a good way of finding out if your
>> concerns were addressed in the discussion or not. If I overlooked
>> something, I am sorry for that. Still, my intention is to continue the
>> discussion, not to ignore it. Because as it stands, we don't have such a
>> debugging mechanism in place currently, and with people working with DT
>> overlays, I'd think it would be nice to have.
> 
> Yeah I agree with all of that, I didn't think there were really any
> concerns left outstanding. These trace points are very useful, I've
> twice added them to a kernel to debug something, so it would be great
> for them to be in mainline.
> 
> cheers
> 

Yes, I believe there are concerns outstanding.  I'll try to read through
the whole thread today to make sure I'm not missing anything.

-Frank