linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/10] efi/x86: Use pr_efi

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: <20200429215106.GE1621173@rani.riverdale.lan>
Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 17:51:06 -0400
From:   Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] efi/x86: Use pr_efi_err for error messages

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:45:17PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 23:43, Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:49:21PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 20:47, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 13:41 -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > > > Use pr_efi_err instead of bare efi_printk for error messages.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps it'd be better to rename pr_efi_err to eri_err
> > > > to it's clearer it's a typical efi_ logging function.
> > > >
> > > > $ git grep -w --name-only pr_efi_err | \
> > > >   xargs sed -i 's/\bpr_efi_err\b/efi_err/g'
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, pr_efi_err() is probably not the best name
> >
> > Should I rename pr_efi/pr_efi_err to, say, efi_pr_info/efi_pr_error?
> 
> If you don't mind spinning another couple of patches, yes, that would
> be helpful.

No problem.

> 
> Let's use efi_pr_info and efi_pr_err to stay aligned with the ordinary
> counterparts

Right, for some reason I thought it was pr_error but it's actually
pr_err.