linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/15] cxl: Unify debug messages when calling devm_cxl_add

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: <Yxb3HQVr5BJzxedj@rric.localdomain>
Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2022 09:30:37 +0200
From:   Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
CC:     Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <bwidawsk@...nel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] cxl: Unify debug messages when calling
 devm_cxl_add_port()

On 31.08.22 10:59:45, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 10:15:51 +0200
> Robert Richter <rrichter@....com> wrote:
> 
> > CXL ports are added in a couple of code paths using
> > devm_cxl_add_port(). Debug messages are individually generated, but
> > are incomplete and inconsistent. Change this by moving its generation
> > to devm_cxl_add_port(). This unifies the messages and reduces code
> > duplication. Also, generate messages on failure.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>
> 
> This is one for Dan etc as it is mostly a question of how verbose we want
> the debug prints to be plus preference for caller or callee being
> responsible for outputting this sort of message.
> 
> Patch looks good to me if we want to make this sort of change.

Should I take this as a Reviewed-by?

Thanks,

-Robert