linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/8] ASoC: topology: suppress probe deferral errors

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZKvzITFLCQzmw72w@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2023 14:01:37 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Amadeusz Sławiński 
        <amadeuszx.slawinski@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Banajit Goswami <bgoswami@...cinc.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] ASoC: topology: suppress probe deferral errors

On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 09:25:26AM +0200, Amadeusz Sławiński wrote:
> On 7/6/2023 8:14 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:

> > In short, it is not correct to use dev_err_probe() here as this is not a
> > probe function.
> > 
> > dev_err_probe() is tied to driver core and will specifically allocate
> > and associate an error message with the struct device on probe
> > deferrals, which is later freed when the struct device is bound to a
> > driver (or released).

> I guess you mean call to: device_set_deferred_probe_reason(dev, &vaf);
> perhaps functionality could be extended to allow to skip this call and 
> just do prints? Or just add separate dev_err_defer function without this 
> step, although it would be best if they could share parts of code.

Feel free to suggest adding such a function if you think it's
worthwhile. It doesn't exist today it should not be a prerequisite for
suppressing these error messages.

Johan