linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] kunit: fix failure to build without printk

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:   Fri, 30 Aug 2019 16:02:13 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     "Bird, Timothy" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>, shuah <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kunit: fix failure to build without printk

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 3:46 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-08-30 at 21:58 +0000, Tim.Bird@...y.com wrote:
> > > From: Joe Perches
> []
> > IMHO %pV should be avoided if possible.  Just because people are
> > doing it doesn't mean it should be used when it is not necessary.
>
> Well, as the guy that created %pV, I of course
> have a different opinion.
>
> > >  then wouldn't it be easier to pass in the
> > > > kernel level as a separate parameter and then strip off all printk
> > > > headers like this:
> > >
> > > Depends on whether or not you care for overall
> > > object size.  Consolidated formats with the
> > > embedded KERN_<LEVEL> like suggested are smaller
> > > overall object size.
> >
> > This is an argument I can agree with.  I'm generally in favor of
> > things that lessen kernel size creep. :-)
>
> As am I.

Sorry, to be clear, we are talking about the object size penalty due
to adding a single parameter to a function. Is that right?