linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: SOF: imx: Remove the use of 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <00984350-97d2-4aaf-96c3-091f15ec1254@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 12:24:40 +0300
From: Laurentiu Mihalcea <laurentiumihalcea111@...il.com>
To: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>,
 Xichao Zhao <zhao.xichao@...o.com>,
 Laurentiu Mihalcea <laurentiu.mihalcea@....com>
Cc: lgirdwood@...il.com, peter.ujfalusi@...ux.intel.com,
 yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com, ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com,
 daniel.baluta@....com, broonie@...nel.org, perex@...ex.cz, tiwai@...e.com,
 shawnguo@...nel.org, s.hauer@...gutronix.de, kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com,
 pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.dev, kernel@...gutronix.de, festevam@...il.com,
 linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: SOF: imx: Remove the use of dev_err_probe()


On 8/20/2025 10:04 AM, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 2:29 PM Xichao Zhao <zhao.xichao@...o.com> wrote:
>> The dev_err_probe() doesn't do anything when error is '-ENOMEM'.
>> Therefore, remove the useless call to dev_err_probe(), and just
>> return the value instead.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xichao Zhao <zhao.xichao@...o.com>
> NACK on this.
>
> Quote from dev_err_probe documentation:
>
> ```
>  Using this helper in your probe function is totally fine even if @err
>  * is known to never be -EPROBE_DEFER.
>  * The benefit compared to a normal dev_err() is the standardized format
>  * of the error code, which is emitted symbolically (i.e. you get "EAGAIN"
>  * instead of "-35"), and having the error code returned allows more
>  * compact error paths.
> ```


AFAIK the kernel logs are verbose enough on OOM errors, which makes prints

such as the ones removed by this series unneeded (have a look at [1]). Normally,

you'd get a warning from checkpatch but I think these logs slipped through the

cracks because the error messages do not quite match the expected format?


[1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/10/382