linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dev_printk: add new 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

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZjOzLJ69qjT5CVQU@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 18:37:16 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>
Cc: nuno.sa@...log.com, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
	Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
	John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Olivier Moysan <olivier.moysan@...s.st.com>,
	Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
	Jyoti Bhayana <jbhayana@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dev_printk: add new dev_err_probe() helpers

On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 01:54:36PM +0200, Nuno Sá wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-04-23 at 18:45 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 06:31:20PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 05:20:30PM +0200, Nuno Sa via B4 Relay wrote:
> > > > From: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com>

..

> > > > +#define dev_err_cast_probe(dev, ___err_ptr, fmt,
> > > > ...)	({			\
> > > > +	ERR_PTR(dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(___err_ptr), fmt,
> > > > ##__VA_ARGS__));	\
> > > > +})
> > 
> > After looking into the next patch I think this should be rewritten to use %pe,
> > hence should be an exported function. Or dev_err_probe() should be split to
> > a version that makes the difference between int and const void * (maybe using
> > _Generic()).
> 
> I replied a bit in the other patch but I'm of the opinion that's likely just more
> complicated than it needs to be (IMO). Why is the PTR_ERR(___err_ptr) that bad? If we
> really want to have a version that takes pointer why not just:
> 
> #define dev_err_ptr_probe(dev, ___err, fmt, ...) \
> 	dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(__err), fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> 
> 
> (yes, while _Generic() could be fun I'm trying to avoid it. In this case, I think
> having explicit defines is more helpful)

It seems dev_err_probe() already uses %pe, so we are fine.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko