netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 23/28] net: wan: framer: Add support for the Lantiq PEF2256 framer

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: <c27fa438-0885-4e02-a957-ee40b8ef6da1@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2023 12:52:29 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Qiang Zhao <qiang.zhao@....com>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
	Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@...il.com>,
	Xiubo Li <Xiubo.Lee@...il.com>, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
	Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 23/28] net: wan: framer: Add support for the Lantiq
 PEF2256 framer

> > > +static void pef2256_isr_default_handler(struct pef2256 *pef2256, u8 nbr, u8 isr)
> > > +{
> > > +	dev_warn(pef2256->dev, "ISR%u: 0x%02x not handled\n", nbr, isr);
> > > +}  
> > 
> > Should this be rate limited? It is going to be very noise if it gets
> > called once per frame time.
> 
> This function should not be called.
> It is wired on some interrupts and these interrupts should not be triggered.
> It they fired, something was wrong.
> 
> I would prefer to keep this dev_warn() to keep the user informed about the
> problem.

I would definitely keep it, but rate limit it. dev_warn_ratelimited().

	Andrew