linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] driver core: fw_devlink: Don't warn in fw_devlink_dev_sync

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

Message-Id: <DD22MGF3HNLM.Q7S70RX4NZXS@cknow.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 19:52:11 +0200
From: "Diederik de Haas" <didi.debian@...ow.org>
To: "Ulf Hansson" <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc: "Saravana Kannan" <saravanak@...gle.com>, "Rafael J . Wysocki"
 <rafael@...nel.org>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, "Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
 "Nicolas Frattaroli" <nicolas.frattaroli@...labora.com>, "Heiko Stuebner"
 <heiko@...ech.de>, "Sebastian Reichel" <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>,
 "Sebin Francis" <sebin.francis@...com>, "Tomi Valkeinen"
 <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>, "Jon Hunter" <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
 <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: fw_devlink: Don't warn in
 fw_devlink_dev_sync_state()

On Thu Sep 25, 2025 at 4:26 PM CEST, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sept 2025 at 15:59, Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.org> wrote:
>> On Thu Sep 25, 2025 at 1:59 PM CEST, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> > Due to the wider deployment of the ->sync_state() support, for PM domains
>> > for example, we are receiving reports about the messages that are being
>> > logged in fw_devlink_dev_sync_state(). In particular as they are at the
>> > warning level, which doesn't seem correct.
>> >
>> > Even if it certainly is useful to know that the ->sync_state() condition
>> > could not be met, there may be nothing wrong with it. For example, a driver
>> > may be built as module and are still waiting to be initialized/probed.
>>
>> "there may be nothing wrong with it" doesn't sound very convincing.
>> So there *can* be something wrong with it, so warning sounds
>> appropriate? If there is (certainly) something wrong with it, I expect
>> an error.
>
> Sorry if I was too vague. See more below.
>
>> FWIW: most of my drivers/modules are built as modules.
>> I do seem to run into 'problems' more then average because of that, but
>> to me it just signals there is something wrong ... which should be
>> fixed. Not silenced.
>
> Well, why is it wrong to have drivers being built as modules? They

Nothing wrong with it at all. It just means I notice issues (like [1])
that others may not who have modules built-in.

[1] a52dffaa46c2 ("drm/rockchip: vop2: make vp registers nonvolatile")

> just happen to be probed at some point later, then why should we have
> warnings printed in the log due to this?

I thought the failure of the check was more important then it apparently
is. Then warning about it does seem excessive.

Cheers,
  Diederik

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)