linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] can: ctucanfd: remove PCI module debug parameters and core debug statements

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <202204251010.39032.pisa@cmp.felk.cvut.cz>
Date:   Mon, 25 Apr 2022 10:10:38 +0200
From:   Pavel Pisa <pisa@....felk.cvut.cz>
To:     Vincent Mailhol <vincent.mailhol@...il.com>,
        linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
        "Marc Kleine-Budde" <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Cc:     Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Marin Jerabek <martin.jerabek01@...il.com>,
        Ondrej Ille <ondrej.ille@...il.com>,
        Jiri Novak <jnovak@....cvut.cz>,
        Jaroslav Beran <jara.beran@...il.com>,
        Petr Porazil <porazil@...ron.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Carsten Emde <c.emde@...dl.org>,
        Drew Fustini <pdp7pdp7@...il.com>,
        Matej Vasilevski <matej.vasilevski@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] can: ctucanfd: remove PCI module debug parameters and core debug statements

Hello Vincent,

On Monday 25 of April 2022 09:48:51 Vincent Mailhol wrote:
> On Mon. 25 Apr. 2022 at 14:11, Pavel Pisa <pisa@....felk.cvut.cz> wrote:
> > This and remove of inline keyword from the local static functions
> > should make happy all checks in actual versions of the both checkpatch.pl
> > and patchwork tools.
>
> The title and the description say two different things.
>
> When looking at the code, it just seemed that you squashed
> together two different patches: one to remove the inlines and one
> to remove the debug. I guess you should split it again.

if you or somebody else confirms that the three lines change
worth separate patch I regenerate the series.
The changes are not based on third party patches but only
on indications reported by static analysis tools.
Remove of inline in the local static functions probably
does not even change code generation by current compiler
generation. Removed debug outputs are under local ifdef
disabled by default, so only real change is step down from
option to use module parameter to check for possible
broken MSI causing the problems on PCIe CTU CAN FD integration.
So I thought that single relatively small cleanup patch is
less load to maintainers.

But I have no strong preference there and will do as confirmed.

By the way, what is preference for CC, should the series
be sent to  linux-kernel and netdev or it is preferred for these
local changes to send it only to linux-can to not load others?
Same for CC to David Miller.

Best wishes,

                Pavel
-- 
                Pavel Pisa
    phone:      +420 603531357
    e-mail:     pisa@....felk.cvut.cz
    Department of Control Engineering FEE CVUT
    Karlovo namesti 13, 121 35, Prague 2
    university: http://control.fel.cvut.cz/
    personal:   http://cmp.felk.cvut.cz/~pisa
    projects:   https://www.openhub.net/accounts/ppisa
    CAN related:http://canbus.pages.fel.cvut.cz/
    Open Technologies Research Education and Exchange Services
    https://gitlab.fel.cvut.cz/otrees/org/-/wikis/home