linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] media: stk1160: Fixed high volume of stk1160

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: <ZWEj5sDUs83qn0pc@equinox>
Date:   Fri, 24 Nov 2023 22:29:58 +0000
From:   Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>
To:     Ghanshyam Agrawal <ghanshyam1898@...il.com>
Cc:     ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar, mchehab@...nel.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] media: stk1160: Fixed high volume of stk1160_dbg
 messages

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 09:43:04PM +0530, Ghanshyam Agrawal wrote:
> The function stk1160_dbg gets called too many times, which causes
> the output to get flooded with messages. Since stk1160_dbg uses
> printk, it is now replaced with dev_warn_ratelimited.
> 
> Suggested-by: Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Ghanshyam Agrawal <ghanshyam1898@...il.com>
> ---
> v2:
> Thanks for your suggestions Phillip. I have updated the TODO comment and 
> used dev_warn_ratelimited for inclusion of kernel warning.
> 
>  drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c | 12 +++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c b/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c

Hi Ghanshyam,

Thank you for the patch, but it is sadly incorrect.

You have created this V2 against a tree including the V1 version of your
patch. A V2 patch should apply cleanly against the source tree, with no
previous version first needing to be applied.

On another note, why are you using dev_warn_ratelimited here, and if
there's a good reason, why not use it for the other callsites in this
function? (Genuine question here, I've not studied the difference).

Please create a V3, many thanks.

Nacked-by: Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>

Regards,
Phil