linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: convert to new logging macros based on struct intel_engine

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:   Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:08:22 +0200
From:   Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        Wambui Karuga <wambui.karugax@...il.com>, airlied@...ux.ie,
        daniel@...ll.ch, joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com,
        rodrigo.vivi@...el.com
Cc:     sean@...rly.run, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: convert to new logging macros based on struct intel_engine_cs.

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> Quoting Wambui Karuga (2020-01-13 11:10:25)
>> fn(...) {
>> ...
>> struct intel_engine_cs *E = ...;
>> +struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = E->i915;
>
> No new dev_priv.

Wambui, we're gradually converting all dev_priv variable and parameter
names to i915.

> There should be no reason for drm_dbg here, as the rest of the debug is
> behind ENGINE_TRACE and so the vestigial debug should be moved over, or
> deleted as not being useful.
>
> The error messages look unhelpful.

I don't think you can expect any meaninful improvements on the debug
message contents from Wambui without detailed help at this point.

>
>>                 if ((batch_end - cmd) < length) {
>> -                       DRM_DEBUG("CMD: Command length exceeds batch length: 0x%08X length=%u batchlen=%td\n",
>> -                                 *cmd,
>> -                                 length,
>> -                                 batch_end - cmd);
>> +                       drm_dbg(&dev_priv->drm,
>> +                               "CMD: Command length exceeds batch length: 0x%08X length=%u batchlen=%td\n",
>
> No. This is not driver debug. If anything this should be pr_debug, or
> some over user centric channel.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand your reasoning here.

BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center