From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFEF1C04AA7 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 14:15:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 871ED21019 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 14:15:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730105AbfEMOPy (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 May 2019 10:15:54 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:45072 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729340AbfEMOPy (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 May 2019 10:15:54 -0400 Received: from oasis.local.home (unknown [12.174.139.122]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4136C20862; Mon, 13 May 2019 14:15:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 10:15:50 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Petr Mladek Cc: Andy Shevchenko , David Laight , 'christophe leroy' , Linus Torvalds , Rasmus Villemoes , "Tobin C . Harding" , Michal Hocko , Sergey Senozhatsky , Sergey Senozhatsky , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Michael Ellerman , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Russell Currey , Stephen Rothwell , Heiko Carstens , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" , Martin Schwidefsky Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: Do not break early boot with probing addresses Message-ID: <20190513101550.736fb5f6@oasis.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20190513124220.wty2qbnz4wo52h3x@pathway.suse.cz> References: <20190510081635.GA4533@jagdpanzerIV> <20190510084213.22149-1-pmladek@suse.com> <20190510122401.21a598f6@gandalf.local.home> <096d6c9c17b3484484d9d9d3f3aa3a7c@AcuMS.aculab.com> <20190513091320.GK9224@smile.fi.intel.com> <20190513124220.wty2qbnz4wo52h3x@pathway.suse.cz> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 13 May 2019 14:42:20 +0200 Petr Mladek wrote: > > The "(null)" is good enough by itself and already an established > > practice.. > > (efault) made more sense with the probe_kernel_read() that > checked wide range of addresses. Well, I still think that > it makes sense to distinguish a pure NULL. And it still > used also for IS_ERR_VALUE(). Why not just "(fault)"? That is self descriptive enough. -- Steve From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: Do not break early boot with probing addresses Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 10:15:50 -0400 Message-ID: <20190513101550.736fb5f6@oasis.local.home> References: <20190510081635.GA4533@jagdpanzerIV> <20190510084213.22149-1-pmladek@suse.com> <20190510122401.21a598f6@gandalf.local.home> <096d6c9c17b3484484d9d9d3f3aa3a7c@AcuMS.aculab.com> <20190513091320.GK9224@smile.fi.intel.com> <20190513124220.wty2qbnz4wo52h3x@pathway.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190513124220.wty2qbnz4wo52h3x@pathway.suse.cz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Petr Mladek Cc: Andy Shevchenko , David Laight , 'christophe leroy' , Linus Torvalds , Rasmus Villemoes , "Tobin C . Harding" , Michal Hocko , Sergey Senozhatsky , Sergey Senozhatsky , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Michael Ellerman , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Russell Currey , Stephen Rothwell , Heiko Carstens , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 13 May 2019 14:42:20 +0200 Petr Mladek wrote: > > The "(null)" is good enough by itself and already an established > > practice.. > > (efault) made more sense with the probe_kernel_read() that > checked wide range of addresses. Well, I still think that > it makes sense to distinguish a pure NULL. And it still > used also for IS_ERR_VALUE(). Why not just "(fault)"? That is self descriptive enough. -- Steve From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AFADC04AA7 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 14:17:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB76E2146F for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 14:17:51 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CB76E2146F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 452jZj6gXzzDqHR for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 00:17:49 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=198.145.29.99; helo=mail.kernel.org; envelope-from=srs0=pfyj=tn=goodmis.org=rostedt@kernel.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 452jXW6wXMzDq69 for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 00:15:55 +1000 (AEST) Received: from oasis.local.home (unknown [12.174.139.122]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4136C20862; Mon, 13 May 2019 14:15:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 10:15:50 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Petr Mladek Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: Do not break early boot with probing addresses Message-ID: <20190513101550.736fb5f6@oasis.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20190513124220.wty2qbnz4wo52h3x@pathway.suse.cz> References: <20190510081635.GA4533@jagdpanzerIV> <20190510084213.22149-1-pmladek@suse.com> <20190510122401.21a598f6@gandalf.local.home> <096d6c9c17b3484484d9d9d3f3aa3a7c@AcuMS.aculab.com> <20190513091320.GK9224@smile.fi.intel.com> <20190513124220.wty2qbnz4wo52h3x@pathway.suse.cz> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , Sergey Senozhatsky , Heiko Carstens , "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Rasmus Villemoes , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Michal Hocko , Sergey Senozhatsky , David Laight , Stephen Rothwell , Andy Shevchenko , Linus Torvalds , Martin Schwidefsky , "Tobin C . Harding" Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Mon, 13 May 2019 14:42:20 +0200 Petr Mladek wrote: > > The "(null)" is good enough by itself and already an established > > practice.. > > (efault) made more sense with the probe_kernel_read() that > checked wide range of addresses. Well, I still think that > it makes sense to distinguish a pure NULL. And it still > used also for IS_ERR_VALUE(). Why not just "(fault)"? That is self descriptive enough. -- Steve