linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ipmi:bt-bmc: Delete superfluous dev_warm() inbt_bmc_config

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <feb8858d-9778-dffb-8eb3-6a1efa24bb74@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:28:57 +0800
From:   Tang Bin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>
To:     minyard@....org
Cc:     arnd@...db.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Shengju Zhang <zhangshengju@...s.chinamobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipmi:bt-bmc: Delete superfluous dev_warm()
 inbt_bmc_config_irq()

Hi Corey:

On 2020/4/15 3:44, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:19:51PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
>> The priority of dev_warm() is higher than dev_info(),so if the
>> function bt_bmc_probe() uses dev_info() to print error message,
>> the dev_warm() is redundant.Thus should be removed.
> Actually, this needs to be left in.  That error is not just a that irqs
> were not configured, that's an error that something else went wrong.

Oh ,It's my fault.

I had read the previous email with you again, and mistook it as that you 
agreed with my point of view. I feel humiliated now.

Thanks,

Tang Bin