linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] drm: Remove usage of deprecated DRM

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:   Wed, 21 Dec 2022 21:27:56 +0530
From:   Siddh Raman Pant <code@...dh.me>
To:     Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] drm: Remove usage of deprecated DRM_* macros

On Wed, Dec 21 2022 at 14:46:12 +0530, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Am 20.12.22 um 21:16 schrieb Siddh Raman Pant:
>> This patchset aims to remove usages of deprecated DRM_* macros from the
>> files residing in drivers/gpu/drm root.
>>
>> In process, I found out that NULL as first argument of drm_dbg_* wasn't
>> working, but it was listed as the alternative in deprecation comment,
>> so I fixed that before removing usages of DRM_DEBUG_* macros.
>>
>> This patchset should be applied in order as changes might be dependent.
>>
>> Please review and let me know if any errors are there, and hopefully
>> this gets accepted.
> 
> Thanks for the patchset. Overall this looks fine.
> 
> But the use of pr_() functions is not optimal in my opinion. I know that
> I recommended using it, but at a closer look, I think we might want to
> reconsider that. I wouldn't like losing the '[drm]' tag, but adding them
> to each pr_() call isn't a good idea either.
> 
> I think it would be nicer to replace DRM_INFO with drm_info(NULL, ).
> Depending on the device being NULL, the helpers would select dev-based
> messages or printk-based messages. It would then work like drm_dbg_().
> But it needs some additional changes.
> 
> Can you first move all pr_() related changes into a new patchset? The
> trivial conversion were the device is known and not NULL can remain in
> this patchset and be merged soon. We can afterwards have a separate
> discussion for the changes that currently involve pr_().
> 
> Best regards
> Thomas

Maybe I can just cope for NULL in __drm_printk and change all pr_*()
changes in this patchset to the appropriate ones.

Something like:
#define __drm_printk(drm, level, type, fmt, ...)				\
({										\
	drm_ = __drm_print_dev(drm);						\
	if (drm_)								\
		dev_##level##type((drm_)->dev, "[drm] " fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__);	\
	else									\
		pr_##level##type("[drm] " fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__);			\
})

Thanks,
Siddh