linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 4/5] iio: adc: Update error checks and debug prints

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: <9accb386-0b4c-ca3c-09e9-c2610ea20bfa@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Fri, 22 May 2020 17:28:32 +0530
From:   Jishnu Prakash <jprakash@...eaurora.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     agross@...nel.org, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...durent.com>,
        smohanad@...eaurora.org, kgunda@...eaurora.org,
        aghayal@...eaurora.org, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 4/5] iio: adc: Update error checks and debug prints

Hi Andy,

On 5/13/2020 3:19 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:23 PM Jishnu Prakash <jprakash@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> Change pr_err/pr_debug statements to dev_err/dev_dbg for
>> increased clarity. Also clean up some return value checks.
> 'Also' on the commit message == 'split this to two'.
I'll do the ret value changes in the third patch in my next post, 
according to your comment there.
> But here is a ping pong style of patches (you introduce a problem in
> one patch and fix it in the following).
I'll try to avoid this in the next post
>