linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] EDAC: nuvoton: Add NPCM memory controller driver

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:   Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:15:37 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
Cc:     Medad Young <medadyoung@...il.com>, rric@...nel.org,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>, tony.luck@...el.com,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Benjamin Fair <benjaminfair@...gle.com>,
        Nancy Yuen <yuenn@...gle.com>,
        Patrick Venture <venture@...gle.com>, KWLIU@...oton.com,
        YSCHU@...oton.com, JJLIU0@...oton.com, KFTING <KFTING@...oton.com>,
        Avi Fishman <avifishman70@...il.com>,
        Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@...il.com>,
        Tali Perry <tali.perry1@...il.com>, ctcchien@...oton.com,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-edac <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] EDAC: nuvoton: Add NPCM memory controller driver

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 10:56:43AM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> No idea, why you had to ask this question, while you statement before
> already made the point.

You've told Medad one thing. I told him the complete opposite. Medad as
new submitter gets confused. And I don't want patch submitters to get
confused by review.

So, if you're unsure about a review feedback, don't give it pls.

> Sorry I do not get your point. Would you elaborate on the debug message so
> it’s more useful?

Just think of the big picture: is my error message useful enough for
debugging or would I have to go and add more info to it so that I can
debug an issue?

Example:

There is

	edac_dbg(3, "InterruptStatus : 0x%x\n", intr_status);

now.

Now, how about this?

        edac_dbg(3, "dev: %s, id: %s: IRQ: %d, interrupt status: 0x%x\n",
                 mci->dev_name, mci->ctl_name, irq, intr_status);

Which one, do you think, is more helpful to a person trying to debug any
potential issue with the interrupt handler and the ECCs it is supposed
to issue?

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette