On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 09:05:25AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 12:23:31PM +0800, Pei Xiao wrote: > > > > > > 在 2026/10/5 11:46, Jarkko Sakkinen 写道: > > > On Sat, Oct 03, 2026 at 04:27:55PM +0800, Pei Xiao wrote: > > >> Make the error messages consistently prefixed with "tpm: ", and fix > > >> the tpm_dev_common_init() failure message which was wrongly copied > > >> from the previous step. > > >> > > >> Assisted-by: GLM-5.3 > > >> Signed-off-by: Pei Xiao <[email protected]> > > >> --- > > >> drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c | 6 +++--- > > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > >> > > >> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > > >> b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > > >> index 1ccdbde98b69..666a1c654c02 100644 > > >> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > > >> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > > >> @@ -524,13 +524,13 @@ static int __init tpm_init(void) > > >> > > >> rc = class_register(&tpm_class); > > >> if (rc) { > > >> - pr_err("couldn't create tpm class\n"); > > >> + pr_err("tpm: couldn't create tpm class\n"); > > >> return rc; > > >> } > > >> > > >> rc = class_register(&tpmrm_class); > > >> if (rc) { > > >> - pr_err("couldn't create tpmrm class\n"); > > >> + pr_err("tpm: couldn't create tpmrm class\n"); > > >> goto out_destroy_tpm_class; > > >> } > > >> > > >> @@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ static int __init tpm_init(void) > > >> > > >> rc = tpm_dev_common_init(); > > >> if (rc) { > > >> - pr_err("tpm: failed to allocate char dev region\n"); > > >> + pr_err("tpm: failed to allocate TPM workqueue\n"); > > >> goto out_unreg_chrdev; > > >> } > > >> > > >> -- > > >> 2.25.1 > > >> > > > > > > I NAK this one. It is not fixing anything. > > Hmm, this is a cleanup, not a fix—just a very minor change to an error > > log/print. I noticed it was duplicated (with the alloc_chrdev_region > > error print), which made it impossible to tell which function call had > > failed (it might actually never be executed). So I just brought up this > > cleanup along the way. > > If there is patch that is coming along the way, it is patch that should > not be sent because: > > 1. It wastes also everyone else's time. > 2. Lack of understanding of cause and effect because by definition > you have no idea what you are submitting. E > > Pure clean ups per se are already something that is usually best to NAK > but this patch is not a clean up. > > I mean the path is doing arbitrary log message changes. That is not > harmless change as you enforce your arbitrary preferences also for few > billion other users.
Well, maybe just machines but anyhow :-) Br, Jarkko
