linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] checkpatch: Add dev_err

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:   Fri, 1 Dec 2023 08:34:14 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] checkpatch: Add dev_err_probe() to the list of Log
 Functions

On 12/1/23 08:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 08:01:28AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 12/1/23 07:14, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> dev_err_probe() is missing in the list of Log Functions and hence
>>> checkpatch issues a warning in the cases when any other function
>>> in use won't trigger it. Add dev_err_probe() to the list to behave
>>> consistently.
> 
> ...
> 
>> Not sure if I agree. The difference here is that dev_err_probe()
>> has two additional parameters ahead of the string. I would very much prefer
>> to have those two additional parameters on a separate line if the string is
>> too long to fit in 100 columns with those two parameters on the same line.
>> In other words, I very much prefer
>>
>> 	dev_err_probe(dev, -ESOMETHING,
>> 		      "very long string");
>> over
>> 	dev_err_probe(dev, -ESOMETHING, "very long string");
>>
>> and I don't really think that the latter has any benefits.
>>
>> Also note that other dev_xxx() log functions are not included in the above test
>> and would still generate warnings. Accepting
>>
>> 	dev_err_probe(dev, -ESOMETHING, "very long string");
>> but not
>> 	dev_err(dev, "very long string");
> 
> They are included, see the line previous to the added one.
> (Regexp covers something like x_y_()* and x_*() families with the explicitly
>   listed * suffixes.)
> 
> That's why _this_ change makes it consistent.
> 

Hmm ok. Still don't like it.

Guenter