linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] staging: vchiq_arm: use standard print helpers

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, 28 Apr 2022 17:45:51 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Adrien Thierry <athierry@...hat.com>
Cc:     Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@...nel.org>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: vchiq_arm: use standard print helpers

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 05:23:17PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 11:05:49AM -0400, Adrien Thierry wrote:
> > Replace the custom debug print macros with the standard dev_err() and
> > friends.
> > 
> > This handles TODO item "Cleanup logging mechanism".
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Adrien Thierry <athierry@...hat.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > Changes since v1: removed function name in dev_dbg() calls
> > 
> >  .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c           | 157 +++---
> >  .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_connected.c     |   7 +-
> >  .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_connected.h     |   4 +-
> >  .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_core.c          | 495 ++++++++----------
> >  .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_core.h          |  43 +-
> >  .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_debugfs.c       | 105 ----
> >  .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_dev.c           |  86 ++-
> >  7 files changed, 341 insertions(+), 556 deletions(-)
> 
> Try doing this in smaller chunks.  There's a lot of churn here, and not
> all of it is correct.
> 
> Try removing these one-function-at-a-time and then when it's all
> finished, you can remove the debugfs and function calls as no one is
> calling them.

That is one function you are replacing at a time, not to do this one
function you are cleaning up in the source at a time.  If that makes
sense.  Awkward wording...