linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] PCI/AER: Print error message as per the TODO

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed,  5 Jun 2024 23:11:56 +0000
From: Abhinav Jain <jain.abhinav177@...il.com>
To: helgaas@...nel.org
Cc: bhelgaas@...gle.com,
	jain.abhinav177@...il.com,
	javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	mahesh@...ux.ibm.com,
	oohall@...il.com,
	skhan@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI/AER: Print error message as per the TODO

On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 16:58:48 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> - It doesn't apply to -rc1 (the TODO message is missing).  In PCI,
>   we normally apply patches on topic branches based on -rc1.

Thank you for the detailed feedback. I was looking at mainline only.

> - The subject should be more specific so it makes sense all by
>   itself, e.g., "Log note if we find too many devices with errors"

> - Add period at end of sentence in commit log.
> - Move historical notes (v1 URL, changes since v1) below the "---"
>  line so they don't get included in the commit log.

I have included these changes to the v3. Please find it here: 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240605230954.22911-1-jain.abhinav177@gmail.com/

> - __func__ is not relevant here -- that's generally a debugging
>   thing.  We can find the function by searching for the message
>   text.  In cases like this, I'd rather have something that helps
>   identify a *device* that's related to the message, e.g., the
>   pci_dev in this case.  So I'd suggest pci_err(dev, "...") here.

> - I'd keep pci_err() instead of switching to pr_notice().  If we get
>   this message, we should re-think the way we collect this
>   information, so I want to hear about it.

I understand, this helped me get a clear picture of what needs to be 
done. I have accordingly added two pci_err for the same. Please review.