linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] power: supply: charger-manager: Fix info message in check_charging

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:   Wed, 2 Sep 2020 11:43:44 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:     Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Bakker <xc-racer2@...e.ca>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Jonghwa Lee <jonghwa3.lee@...sung.com>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] power: supply: charger-manager: Fix info message in
 check_charging_duration()

On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 09:29:31AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 9/2/20 9:23 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > A few months ago, commit e132fc6bb89b ("power: supply: charger-manager: Make decisions focussed on battery status")
> > changed the expression in the if statement from "duration > desc->discharging_max_duration_ms"
> > to "duration > desc->charging_max_duration_ms", but the arguments for dev_info() were left unchanged.
> > Apparently, due to a copy-paste error.
> > 
> > Fix this by using the proper arguments for dev_info().
> > 
> > Also, while there, replace "exceed" with "exceeds", for both messages.
> > 
> > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1496803 ("Copy-paste error")
> > Fixes: e132fc6bb89b ("power: supply: charger-manager: Make decisions focussed on battery status")
> > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@...nel.org>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> >  -  Replace "exceed" with "exceeds"
> > 
> >  drivers/power/supply/charger-manager.c | 6 +++---
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/charger-manager.c b/drivers/power/supply/charger-manager.c
> > index 07992821e252..a6d5dbd55e37 100644
> > --- a/drivers/power/supply/charger-manager.c
> > +++ b/drivers/power/supply/charger-manager.c
> > @@ -464,7 +464,7 @@ static int check_charging_duration(struct charger_manager *cm)
> >  		duration = curr - cm->charging_start_time;
> >  
> >  		if (duration > desc->charging_max_duration_ms) {
> > -			dev_info(cm->dev, "Charging duration exceed %ums\n",
> > +			dev_info(cm->dev, "Charging duration exceeds %ums\n",
> >  				 desc->charging_max_duration_ms);
> >  			ret = true;
> >  		}
> > @@ -472,8 +472,8 @@ static int check_charging_duration(struct charger_manager *cm)
> >  		duration = curr - cm->charging_end_time;
> >  
> >  		if (duration > desc->charging_max_duration_ms) {
> > -			dev_info(cm->dev, "Discharging duration exceed %ums\n",
> > -				 desc->discharging_max_duration_ms);
> > +			dev_info(cm->dev, "Charging duration exceeds %ums\n",
> > +				 desc->charging_max_duration_ms);
> >  			ret = true;
> >  		}
> >  	}
> > 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It looks to me like the second block (else if) should be about discharging,
> not charging, more like Colin King's patch had it:
>

I had the same impression for a moment, but what makes me think this is
more about charging than discharging, is this line:

471         } else if (cm->battery_status == POWER_SUPPLY_STATUS_NOT_CHARGING) {

which was introduced by the same commit:

e132fc6bb89b ("power: supply: charger-manager: Make decisions focussed on battery status")

let's find out... :)

Thanks
--
Gustavo