linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] kobject: to use pr_warn replace KERN

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181106113603.ydi6xyrwe23zykfm@yubo-2>
Date:   Tue, 6 Nov 2018 06:36:04 -0500
From:   YU Bo <tsu.yubo@...il.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kobject: to use pr_warn replace KERN_WARNING

On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 09:09:15AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:58 AM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2018-11-06 at 08:49 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:42 AM Bo YU <tsu.yubo@...il.com> wrote:
>> > > Fix warning form checkpatch, use pr_warn replace KERN_WARNING
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Bo YU <tsu.yubo@...il.com>
>> >
>> > First off, IMO, you should not change the existing code just in order
>> > to make checkpatch happy about it.  That alone is not a good enough
>> > reason for modifying it.
>> >
>> > If the checkpatch warning indicates an issue like broken white space
>> > (and I mean really broken and not lines longer than 80 chars etc),
>> > then that may be a reason to modify the existing code, depending.
>>
>> Existing code is slightly broken.
>> There is currently a missing terminating newline in the
>> non-switch case match, when msg == NULL;
>
>OK, so this should be explained in the patch changelog.
>
>Saying "I do this to make checkpatch happy" in the changelog is just
>not enough IMO (if not outright misleading).
Using pr_* code become more and more in kernel when i read code and then i ask
for help from checkpatch. In commit log i just copy the what to to but not my
explations that why to do such.
I will send V3, thanks.