linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 17:01:03 +0200
From: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, 
 Olivier Moysan <olivier.moysan@...s.st.com>, Jyoti Bhayana
 <jbhayana@...gle.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
 Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>, John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Andi Shyti
 <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
 linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Andrzej
 Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] dev_printk: add new dev_err_probe() helpers

On Mon, 2024-06-17 at 20:41 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:07:48 +0100
> Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 09:22:37 +0200
> > Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > This is similar to dev_err_probe() but for cases where an ERR_PTR() or
> > > ERR_CAST() is to be returned simplifying patterns like:
> > > 
> > > 	dev_err_probe(dev, ret, ...);
> > > 	return ERR_PTR(ret)
> > > or
> > > 	dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(ptr), ...);
> > > 	return ERR_CAST(ptr)
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com>  
> > 
> > I'm convinced this is worth doing but would like inputs from others
> > before I pick this series up.
> 
> Andi and Andy,
> 
> You both commented on earlier versions.  Do you think this is a good
> change set?
> 
> I've +CC a few more based on a quick look at the original
> dev_err_probe() series. Whilst this isn't adding a bunch of new stuff
> around deferred probing (like that series did), maybe some of those
> reviewers will give opinions here?
> 

Hi,

I there something else needed from my side? Would be nice to have some
feedback...

- Nuno Sá