linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 13/32] mtd: spi-nor: Print error messages inside Reg Ops methods

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]

Message-ID: <ff883ecb-104a-72c3-2169-5200bbd45bc6@microchip.com>
Date:   Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:18:55 +0000
From:   <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>
To:     <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
CC:     <richard@....at>, <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <vigneshr@...com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/32] mtd: spi-nor: Print error messages inside Reg
 Ops methods



On 10/31/2019 01:05 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> External E-Mail
> 
> 
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 11:17:09 +0000
> <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com> wrote:
> 
>> From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>
>>
>> Spare the callers of printing error messages by themselves.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c | 165 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>  1 file changed, 123 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
>> index e5ed9012cd50..bc46b946ac77 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
>> @@ -394,6 +394,8 @@ static ssize_t spi_nor_write_data(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t to, size_t len,
>>   */
>>  static int spi_nor_write_enable(struct spi_nor *nor)
>>  {
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>>  	if (nor->spimem) {
>>  		struct spi_mem_op op =
>>  			SPI_MEM_OP(SPI_MEM_OP_CMD(SPINOR_OP_WREN, 1),
>> @@ -401,10 +403,16 @@ static int spi_nor_write_enable(struct spi_nor *nor)
>>  				   SPI_MEM_OP_NO_DUMMY,
>>  				   SPI_MEM_OP_NO_DATA);
>>  
>> -		return spi_mem_exec_op(nor->spimem, &op);
>> +		ret = spi_mem_exec_op(nor->spimem, &op);
>> +	} else {
>> +		ret = nor->controller_ops->write_reg(nor, SPINOR_OP_WREN,
>> +						     NULL, 0);
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	return nor->controller_ops->write_reg(nor, SPINOR_OP_WREN, NULL, 0);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		dev_err(nor->dev, "error %d on Write Enable\n", ret);
> 
> I thought we agreed on using dev_err_once() here (applies to other
> dev_err() calls). If it fails once it's unlikely to succeed on
> subsequent calls, and I don't think spamming the kernel logs is very
> useful.
> 

I used dev_err() and not dev_err_once() because if spi_nor_write_enable() fails,
we stop the execution and just return the spi_nor_write_enable()'s error. The
kernel logs will not be spammed because it will be just an error reported.

dev_err_once() would make sense if we change the method's return type from int
to void, but why to ignore possible errors from write enable/disable?