netdev - Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] mac80211_hwsim: add PMSR capability support

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: <CABZjns6nER31ZbBKQ_QKU0Hrh5V5U_W6Q4vGsE7kt7S5YYy3mg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2023 17:08:54 +0900
From:   Jaewan Kim <jaewan@...gle.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     johannes@...solutions.net, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com, adelva@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] mac80211_hwsim: add PMSR capability support

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 2:34 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 12:48:37AM +0900, Jaewan Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 12:55 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > +static int parse_ftm_capa(const struct nlattr *ftm_capa,
> > > > +                       struct cfg80211_pmsr_capabilities *out)
> > > > +{
> > > > +     struct nlattr *tb[NL80211_PMSR_FTM_CAPA_ATTR_MAX + 1];
> > > > +     int ret = nla_parse_nested(tb, NL80211_PMSR_FTM_CAPA_ATTR_MAX,
> > > > +                                ftm_capa, hwsim_ftm_capa_policy, NULL);
> > > > +     if (ret) {
> > > > +             pr_err("mac80211_hwsim: malformed FTM capability");
> > >
> > > dev_err()?
> >
> > Is dev_err() the printing error for device code?
>
> I am sorry, but I can not understand this question, can you rephrase it?

I just wanted to know better about `dev_err()`,
because all existing code in this file uses `pr_err()`,
and there's no good documentation for `dev_err()`.

Given your answer below, it seems like that `pr_err()` isn't a good
choice in this file.
Am I correct?

>
> > If so, would it be better to propose another change for replacing all
> > pr_err() with dev_err() in this file?
>
> Odds are, yes, but that should be independent of your change to add a
> new feature.

Got it. Then I'll break the consistency in this file for my change,
and also propose another change for using `dev_err()` instead of `pr_err()`.

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h



-- 
Jaewan Kim (김재완) | Software Engineer in Google Korea |
jaewan@...gle.com | +82-10-2781-5078