linux-kernel - DRM GUD driver debug logging

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2a6afe3532235c7b76758163e2439e55c93df241.camel@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:02:21 +0100
From: Ruben Wauters <rubenru09@....com>
To: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Maxime Ripard	
 <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, David Airlie
	 <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: DRM GUD driver debug logging

Hello

I was taking a look at the code for the gud driver. I am aware this
driver was recently orphaned and I wish to get up to speed on it, and
maybe with enough learning and work I can take over maintainance of it
in the future.

I noticed that in the function gud_disconnect in gud_driv.c on like 623
there is the following code

	drm_dbg(drm, "%s:\n", __func__);

checkpatch.pl marks this as unnecessary ftrace like logging, and
suggests to use ftrace instead. Since (as far as I can tell) this
effectively just prints the function name, would it not be better to
just use ftrace for debugging and remove this call all together?

While it isn't actively *harming* the code as such, it does seem a bit
unnecessary.

I'd like to know the DRM maintainers opinions. I know this particular
driver does not have a maintainer dedicated to it, so I'd like to know
the opinion of those that maintain the subsystem, and anyone else that
has any opinion.

Thank you

Ruben Wauters