linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: Drop CONFIG_DEBUG

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: <CAHp75VcK0JDkTXuPc2N8G+OotXK0mqfQn7i4nDqXDODe1SqcrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:59:01 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jianqun Xu <jay.xu@...k-chips.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: Drop CONFIG_DEBUG_GPIO

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 4:49 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 3:38 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 4:55 AM Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > Description: it says nothing about enabling extra printk()s. But -DDEBUG
> > > does just that; it turns on every dev_dbg()/pr_debug() that would
> > > otherwise be silent.
> >
> > Which is what some and I are using a lot during development.
> >
>
> AFAIK this: https://www.kernel.org/doc/local/pr_debug.txt is the right
> way to do it?

Yes. But it means we need to have a separate option on a per driver
(or group of drivers) basis. I don't think it's a good idea right now.

> https://www.kernel.org/doc/local/pr_debug.txt
>
> This doesn't mention adding Kconfig options just to enable debug messages.
>
> > ...
> >
> > > -ccflags-$(CONFIG_DEBUG_GPIO)   += -DDEBUG
> > > -
> >
> > NAK to this change.
> >
> > I'm not against enabling might_sleep() unconditionally.
> >
>
> These are already controlled by CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP, no? Or
> maybe I can't parse that double negation.

The part of the patch that converts might_sleep_if():s is fine with me.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko