linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vfio/fsl-mc: Fix a typo in a comment

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: <db505c50-e855-5e94-1f09-173310177bda@wanadoo.fr>
Date:   Tue, 16 Aug 2022 17:00:50 +0200
From:   Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Diana Craciun <diana.craciun@....nxp.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfio/fsl-mc: Fix a typo in a comment

Le 09/08/2022 à 18:20, Jason Gunthorpe a écrit :
> On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 09:56:13PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>> L and S are swapped/
>> s/VFIO_FLS_MC/VFIO_FSL_MC/
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
>> ---
>> All the dev_ logging functions in the file have the "VFIO_FSL_MC: "
>> prefix.
>> As they are dev_ function, the driver should already be displayed.
>>
>> So, does it make sense or could they be all removed?
>> ---
>>   drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c b/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c
>> index 3feff729f3ce..66d01db1d240 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c
>> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static void vfio_fsl_mc_close_device(struct vfio_device *core_vdev)
>>   
>>   	if (WARN_ON(ret))
>>   		dev_warn(&mc_cont->dev,
>> -			 "VFIO_FLS_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret);
>> +			 "VFIO_FSL_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret);
> 
> WARN_ON already prints, this is better written as
> 
> WARN(ret, "VFIO_FSL_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret);

Or maybe, just:
if (ret)
	dev_warn(&mc_cont->dev,
		 "VFIO_FSL_MC: reset device has failed (%d)\n", ret);

This keep information about the device, avoid the duplicate printing 
related to WARN_ON+dev_warn and is more in line with error handling in 
other files.

Do you agree or do you prefer a v2 as you proposed with WARN()?

CJ


> 
> Jason
>