linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] scsi: ufs: core: convert to dev_err_probe() in hba

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]

Date:   Mon, 14 Aug 2023 14:24:51 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>
Cc:     jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
        alim.akhtar@...sung.com, avri.altman@....com,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        hugo@...ovil.com, quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] scsi: ufs: core: convert to dev_err_probe() in
 hba_init

On 8/14/23 14:18, Brian Masney wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 12:31:31PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 8/14/23 11:43, Brian Masney wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
>>> index 129446775796..409d176542e1 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
>>> @@ -9235,8 +9235,9 @@ static int ufshcd_variant_hba_init(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>>>    	err = ufshcd_vops_init(hba);
>>>    	if (err)
>>> -		dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: variant %s init failed err %d\n",
>>> -			__func__, ufshcd_get_var_name(hba), err);
>>> +		dev_err_probe(hba->dev, err,
>>> +			      "%s: variant %s init failed err %d\n",
>>> +			      __func__, ufshcd_get_var_name(hba), err);
>>>    out:
>>>    	return err;
>>>    }
>>
>> This opportunity could have been used to improve the grammar of the reported
>> error message. Anyway:
> 
> That's what I originally did in v1, however I was asked to split out the
> cleanup into a different patch. Split out, I think the cleanup on it's
> own isn't worth it's own patch, so that's why I dropped it.
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230808142650.1713432-2-bmasney@redhat.com/

Changing an error message and introducing dev_err_probe() at the same time is
fine. I don't think that is what the reviewer complained about. The complaint
probably was about renaming 'err' into 'ret' and about changing 'goto out'
into 'return 0'?

Thanks,

Bart.