linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] treewide: Remove dev_err() usage after platform_get

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]

Date:   Tue, 30 Jul 2019 08:49:17 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
        Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] treewide: Remove dev_err() usage after
 platform_get_irq()

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:38:44PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> We don't need dev_err() messages when platform_get_irq() fails now that
> platform_get_irq() prints an error message itself when something goes
> wrong. Let's remove these prints with a simple semantic patch.
> 
> // <smpl>
> @@
> expression ret;
> struct platform_device *E;
> @@
> 
> ret =
> (
> platform_get_irq(E, ...)
> |
> platform_get_irq_byname(E, ...)
> );
> 
> if ( \( ret < 0 \| ret <= 0 \) )
> {
> (
> -if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> -{ ...
> -dev_err(...);
> -... }
> |
> ...
> -dev_err(...);
> )
> ...
> }
> // </smpl>
> 
> While we're here, remove braces on if statements that only have one
> statement (manually).

I like this, and I like patch 1/3, but this is going to conflict like
crazy all over the tree with who ever ends up taking it in their tree.

Can you just break this up into per-subsystem pieces and send it through
those trees, and any remaining ones I can take, but at least give
maintainers a chance to take it.

You are also going to have to do a sweep every other release or so to
catch the stragglers.

thanks,

greg k-h