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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 11:14:38 +0200
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc:     Diana Craciun <diana.craciun@....nxp.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...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

On Tue, Aug 16 2022, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 05:00:50PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>> 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()?
>
> If the original author wrote WARN I would not degrade it to just a
> dev_warn.

Having to decide between losing the WARN and losing the device info, I'd
just... fix the typo :)