linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/18] i2c: rk3x: remove printout on handled timeouts

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: Sat, 13 Apr 2024 10:07:36 +0200
From: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
To: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, Andi Shyti
 <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/18] i2c: rk3x: remove printout on handled timeouts

Hello Wolfram,

On 2024-04-13 09:10, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi Dragan,
> 
>> Sure, but I think that having such an additional debug facility
>> can only help and save the people from adding temporary printk()s
>> while debugging.
> 
> Mileages, I guess. I like temporary printouts for temporary debug
> sessions. This way the upstream source code stays slim. In my 
> experience
> with I2C over the years, debugging happens with developers anyhow.
> Logfiles from users which help developers create patches are very rare.
> And those users are usually capable enough to add debug patches.
> Given these experiences (which may be different in other subsystems), I
> don't see why we should carry the bloat.

Yup, adding some printk()s while debugging is pretty much inevitable,
and having full debugging available would add a lot of code, regardless
of the subsystem.

> That said, I'll leave the final decision to the driver maintainers.

Agreed.