netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/1] qed: add prints if request

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: <Yc3hN/BTYtoKBLnC@lunn.ch>
Date:   Thu, 30 Dec 2021 17:41:27 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Venkata Sudheer Kumar Bhavaraju <vbhavaraju@...vell.com>
Cc:     aelior@...vell.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, palok@...vell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/1] qed: add prints if request_firmware()
 failed

On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 03:02:32AM -0800, Venkata Sudheer Kumar Bhavaraju wrote:
> > Hi Venkata
> > 
> > When you decide to do something different to what has been requested,
> > it is a good idea to say why. There might be a very good reason for
> > this, but unless you explain it, i have no idea what it is.
> > 
> >    Andrew
> 
> Hello Andrew,
> 
> I moved the FW_REPO macro to qed_if.h under include/linux since I didn't
> want to bloat something like include/linux/firmware.h. It's really used
> (exact URL in a print after request_firmware() fails) at two other places.

So you think the intel drivers are going to include qed_if.h? Don't
you think something vendor neutral would be better?

Anyway, from what Jakub is saying, you don't need the print at all.

	Andrew