netdev - Re: [RFC 4/4] [flexcan] Add support for FLEXCAN

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110805140110.GI4926@sgi.com>
Date:	Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:01:10 -0500
From:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>
To:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
Cc:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
	socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/4] [flexcan] Add support for FLEXCAN_DEBUG

On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 09:16:06AM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 08/05/2011 04:06 AM, Robin Holt wrote:
> > Add a wrapper function for a register dump when a developer defines
> > FLEXCAN_DEBUG
> 
> Comments inline..however I'm not sure if we need this patch.

I really do like the ability to dump the registers.  It has come in handy
a couple of times while bringing up the board.  I do not know how hard
I would push for them, but I do not see them as having much down side
and I do know they have proven useful for me.

At this point, I have interpretted both your's and Wolfgang's comment as
a suggestion.  I do not know how this group of developers works and if
I should be taking that suggestion as a dope-slap indicating I should
drop this right now because I am an idiot or if the patch just leaves
a bad taste in your mouth.  Would either or both of you please clarify.

> > +#if defined(FLEXCAN_DEBUG)
> > +void _flexcan_reg_dump(struct net_device *dev, const char *file, int line,
> > +		       const char *func)
> > +{
> > +	const struct flexcan_priv *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
> > +	struct flexcan_regs __iomem *regs = priv->base;
> > +
> > +	printk(KERN_INFO "flexcan_reg_dump:%s:%d:%s()\n", file, line, func);
> 
> Use netdev_$LEVEL, please.
> If you use dbg, you can remove the ifdef altogether.

I assume you mean netdev_dbg.  If that were the case, then setting
CONFIG_CAN_DEBUG_DEVICES would bring these printks back and that was
explicitly stated as undesirable.  Am I understanding this wrong?

If not, I am going to fall back to netdev_info instead and leave the
#ifdef FLEXCAN_DEBUG.  Will that work?

Thanks,
Robin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html