linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] ACPI: processor: Get rid of ACPICA message printing

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: <816edceb-983b-03d7-4a96-d325658417fd@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Feb 2021 22:17:40 +0800
From:   Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
CC:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] ACPI: processor: Get rid of ACPICA message
 printing

On 2021/2/25 2:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 3:45 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 12:31 PM Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2021/2/23 2:59, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
>>>> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
>>>
>>> In this file, function acpi_processor_cstate_first_run_checks()
>>> has a wrong pr_notice():
>>>
>>> pr_notice("ACPI: processor limited to max C-state %d\n",
>>>                  max_cstate);
>>>
>>> Since we have pr_fmt() for this file, "ACPI:" is duplicate,
>>> we'd better cleanup this as below:
>>>
>>> pr_notice("processor limited to max C-state %d\n", max_cstate);
>>
>> Thanks for pointing this out, I'll make this change when applying the patch.
> 
> Actually, this issue is not strictly related to the patch here, so I'm
> going to send a separate patch to fix it.

Make sense to me as well.

Thanks
Hanjun