linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] thermal: tegra: remove unnecessary warnings

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181128101227.GB20723@ulmo>
Date:   Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:12:27 +0100
From:   Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:     Wei Ni <wni@...dia.com>
Cc:     daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        rui.zhang@...el.com, edubezval@...il.com, srikars@...dia.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] thermal: tegra: remove unnecessary warnings

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 01:44:35PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
> Convert warnings to info as not all platforms may
> have all the thresholds and sensors enabled.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Ni <wni@...dia.com>
> ---
>  drivers/thermal/tegra/soctherm.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

If these are all optional anyway, why even keep the informational
messages? While those may not show up as warnings in the log, they will
still be unconditional noise in the kernel log. Do we really want that,
or should we just trust that the DT is correct and shut up if optional
thresholds and sensors are not present?

Thierry

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)