linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Replaced hard coded function names in debug messages with __func_

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: <20201102093324.dz5es32yhmga34hs@holly.lan>
Date:   Mon, 2 Nov 2020 09:33:24 +0000
From:   Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
To:     Tabot Kevin <tabot.kevin@...il.com>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Replaced hard coded function names in debug messages
 with __func__ macro.

On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 05:41:03PM +0100, Tabot Kevin wrote:
> This patch fixes the following:
> - Uses __func__ macro to print function names.
> - Got rid of unnecessary braces around single line if statements.
> - End of block comments on a seperate line.
> - A spelling mistake of the word "on".
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tabot Kevin <tabot.kevin@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c | 25 +++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c
> index c907305..1396a33 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c
> @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ static int ov2680_g_bin_factor_x(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, s32 *val)
>  	struct ov2680_device *dev = to_ov2680_sensor(sd);
>  	struct i2c_client *client = v4l2_get_subdevdata(sd);
>  
> -	dev_dbg(&client->dev,  "++++ov2680_g_bin_factor_x\n");
> +	dev_dbg(&client->dev,  "++++%s\n", __func__);

It might be better just to remove this sort of message.

They are not "wrong wrong" but are they actually useful one a
driver's basic functions work? Even where they are useful
dynamic techniques (ftrace, tracepoints, etc) arguably provide a
better way to support "did my function actually run" debug
approaches anyway.


Daniel.


>  	*val = ov2680_res[dev->fmt_idx].bin_factor_x;
>  
>  	return 0;
> @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ static int ov2680_g_bin_factor_y(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, s32 *val)
>  	struct i2c_client *client = v4l2_get_subdevdata(sd);
>  
>  	*val = ov2680_res[dev->fmt_idx].bin_factor_y;
> -	dev_dbg(&client->dev,  "++++ov2680_g_bin_factor_y\n");
> +	dev_dbg(&client->dev,  "++++%s\n", __func__);
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ static int ov2680_get_intg_factor(struct i2c_client *client,
>  	u16 reg_val;
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	dev_dbg(&client->dev,  "++++ov2680_get_intg_factor\n");
> +	dev_dbg(&client->dev,  "++++%s\n", __func__);
>  	if (!info)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> @@ -251,8 +251,8 @@ static long __ov2680_set_exposure(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, int coarse_itg,
>  	int ret, exp_val;
>  
>  	dev_dbg(&client->dev,
> -		"+++++++__ov2680_set_exposure coarse_itg %d, gain %d, digitgain %d++\n",
> -		coarse_itg, gain, digitgain);
> +		"+++++++%s coarse_itg %d, gain %d, digitgain %d++\n",
> +		__func__, coarse_itg, gain, digitgain);
>  
>  	vts = ov2680_res[dev->fmt_idx].lines_per_frame;
>  
> @@ -461,11 +461,11 @@ static int ov2680_v_flip(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, s32 value)
>  	ret = ov2680_read_reg(client, 1, OV2680_FLIP_REG, &val);
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
> -	if (value) {
> +	if (value)
>  		val |= OV2680_FLIP_MIRROR_BIT_ENABLE;
> -	} else {
> +	else
>  		val &= ~OV2680_FLIP_MIRROR_BIT_ENABLE;
> -	}
> +
>  	ret = ov2680_write_reg(client, 1,
>  			       OV2680_FLIP_REG, val);
>  	if (ret)
> @@ -731,7 +731,8 @@ static int gpio_ctrl(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, bool flag)
>  	 * existing integrations often wire two (reset/power_down)
>  	 * because that is the way other sensors work.  There is no
>  	 * way to tell how it is wired internally, so existing
> -	 * firmwares expose both and we drive them symmetrically. */
> +	 * firmwares expose both and we drive them symmetrically.
> +	 */
>  	if (flag) {
>  		ret = dev->platform_data->gpio0_ctrl(sd, 1);
>  		usleep_range(10000, 15000);
> @@ -1060,9 +1061,9 @@ static int ov2680_s_stream(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, int enable)
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&dev->input_lock);
>  	if (enable)
> -		dev_dbg(&client->dev, "ov2680_s_stream one\n");
> +		dev_dbg(&client->dev, "%s on\n", __func__);
>  	else
> -		dev_dbg(&client->dev, "ov2680_s_stream off\n");
> +		dev_dbg(&client->dev, "%s off\n", __func__);
>  
>  	ret = ov2680_write_reg(client, 1, OV2680_SW_STREAM,
>  			       enable ? OV2680_START_STREAMING :
> @@ -1226,7 +1227,7 @@ static int ov2680_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>  	struct v4l2_subdev *sd = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
>  	struct ov2680_device *dev = to_ov2680_sensor(sd);
>  
> -	dev_dbg(&client->dev, "ov2680_remove...\n");
> +	dev_dbg(&client->dev, "%s...\n", __func__);
>  
>  	dev->platform_data->csi_cfg(sd, 0);
>  
> -- 
> 2.7.4
>