linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] cxl/mem: Print unknown capability IDs as hex

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: <40063fe52fcaa066a42d352b13128b6762277542.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Apr 2021 23:34:57 +0000
From:   "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>
To:     "Widawsky, Ben" <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
        "linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Schofield, Alison" <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] cxl/mem: Print unknown capability IDs as hex

On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 16:26 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> Trivial. The spec lists these as hex, so do the same here to make
> debugging easier.
> 
> Fixes: 8adaf747c9f0b ("cxl/mem: Find device capabilities")
> Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cxl/mem.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/mem.c b/drivers/cxl/mem.c
> index 1b5078311f7d..c05617b0ba4b 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/mem.c
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/mem.c
> @@ -939,7 +939,7 @@ static int cxl_mem_setup_regs(struct cxl_mem *cxlm)
>  			cxlm->memdev_regs = register_block;
>  			break;
>  		default:
> -			dev_dbg(dev, "Unknown cap ID: %d (0x%x)\n", cap_id, offset);
> +			dev_dbg(dev, "Unknown cap ID: %x (0x%x)\n", cap_id, offset);

Would %#x be better just for making it unambiguous? Maybe also change
the adjacent 0x%x to %#x while at it.

>  			break;
>  		}
>  	}