linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/6] misc: eeprom: eeprom_93cx6: Replace printk(KERN_ERR ...) with pr

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: <20240913151228.2b312e9b@SWDEV2.connecttech.local>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 15:12:28 -0400
From: Parker Newman <parker@...est.io>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Jiri Slaby
 <jirislaby@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, Parker Newman
 <pnewman@...necttech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/6] misc: eeprom: eeprom_93cx6: Replace
 printk(KERN_ERR ...) with pr_err()

On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 20:54:05 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 10:55:40AM -0400, Parker Newman wrote:
> > From: Parker Newman <pnewman@...necttech.com>
> >
> > Replace printk(KERN_ERR ...) with pr_err() to improve readability.
> >
> > Fixes checkpatch warning:
> >
> > WARNING: Prefer [subsystem eg: netdev]_err([subsystem]dev, ... then
> > dev_err(dev, ... then pr_err(...  to printk(KERN_ERR ...
> > +			printk(KERN_ERR "%s: timeout\n", __func__);
>
> First of all, you probably want pr_fmt() to be defined.

Good point, I will add.

> Second, I would replace the entire while loop by the read_poll_timeout() macro
> from iopoll.h (note to use "true" for sleep before check and drop that one from
> before the loop in the driver).

Good idea.

> Naturally the pr_err() change can be combined with read_poll_timeout(), but
> if you go with pr_fmt() perhaps it still makes sense to have separate changes.
> I dunno which one is better, up to you.
>

Sorry if I am miss-reading but do you mean the pr_err() and pr_fmt() can be combined
and the read_poll_timeout() change should be made in a separate patch after?

Or should I be adding the pr_fmt() define in its own patch, followed by the pr_err()
and read_poll_timeout() in a patch?

Thanks,
Parker