linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] fpga: dfl: omit unneeded casts of u64 values for dev

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: <Zgt7fA/Jfks/iKYi@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:29:00 +0800
From: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Colberg <peter.colberg@...el.com>
Cc: Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>, Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>,
	Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>, Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>,
	linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Russ Weight <russ.weight@...ux.dev>,
	Marco Pagani <marpagan@...hat.com>,
	Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] fpga: dfl: omit unneeded casts of u64 values for
 dev_dbg()

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 08:04:29PM -0400, Peter Colberg wrote:
> Omit unneeded casts of u64 values to unsigned long long for use with
> printk() format specifier %llx. Unlike user space, the kernel defines
> u64 as unsigned long long for all architectures; see commit 2a7930bd77fe
> ("Documentation/printk-formats.txt: No casts needed for u64/s64").

The change is OK. But I suggest just delete the unnecessary dev_dbg()
since now people normally don't want these "Hello, I'm here!" info.

> 
> These changes are cosmetic only; no functional changes.
> 
> Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Colberg <peter.colberg@...el.com>
> ---
> This is an unmodified resend of the second patch only from the series
> "fpga: dfl: clean up string formatting for sysfs_emit() and dev_dbg()".

Why only pick this patch out of the series?

[...]

> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl-fme-mgr.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl-fme-mgr.c
> index ab228d8837a0..da3cb9c35de5 100644
> --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl-fme-mgr.c
> +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-fme-mgr.c
> @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ static int fme_mgr_write_init(struct fpga_manager *mgr,
>  	priv->pr_error = fme_mgr_pr_error_handle(fme_pr);
>  	if (priv->pr_error)
>  		dev_dbg(dev, "previous PR error detected %llx\n",
> -			(unsigned long long)priv->pr_error);
> +			priv->pr_error);

I'm not sure if this is an real problem. Maybe we could keep it.

>  
>  	dev_dbg(dev, "set PR port ID\n");
>  
> @@ -242,8 +242,7 @@ static int fme_mgr_write_complete(struct fpga_manager *mgr,
>  	dev_dbg(dev, "PR operation complete, checking status\n");
>  	priv->pr_error = fme_mgr_pr_error_handle(fme_pr);
>  	if (priv->pr_error) {
> -		dev_dbg(dev, "PR error detected %llx\n",
> -			(unsigned long long)priv->pr_error);
> +		dev_dbg(dev, "PR error detected %llx\n", priv->pr_error);

This is a real problem, is it? Change to dev_err()?

Thanks,
Yilun

>  		return -EIO;
>  	}
>  
> -- 
> 2.44.0
> 
>