linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] cpufreq: vexpress-spc: remove lots of debug messages

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, 18 Oct 2019 07:00:54 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nico@...xnic.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] cpufreq: vexpress-spc: remove lots of debug
 messages

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 11:27:20AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17-10-19, 13:35, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > This driver have been used and tested for year now and the extensive
> > debug/log messages in the driver are not really required anymore.
> > Get rid of those unnecessary log messages.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c | 72 +++++---------------------
> >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c
> >  static void put_cluster_clk_and_freq_table(struct device *cpu_dev,
> > @@ -324,11 +296,9 @@ static void put_cluster_clk_and_freq_table(struct device *cpu_dev,
> >  
> >  	for_each_present_cpu(i) {
> >  		struct device *cdev = get_cpu_device(i);
> > -		if (!cdev) {
> > -			pr_err("%s: failed to get cpu%d device\n", __func__, i);
> > -			return;
> > -		}
> >  
> > +		if (!cdev)
> > +			return;
> 
> We had a blank line after this, which isn't there in your version
> anymore. Please keep that here and few more places below.
>

Ah, this one is spurious change when doing in bulk not intended. I will
add back the blank line.

--
Regards,
Sudeep