[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0910242207180.2439@ginsburg.homenet>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:09:06 +0100 (BST)
From: Tigran Aivazian <tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk>
To: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
cc: Mike Travis <travis@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Hannes Eder <hannes@...neseder.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] SGI x86_64 UV: Limit the number of microcode messages
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
>> - printk(KERN_INFO "microcode: CPU%d sig=0x%x, pf=0x%x, revision=0x%x\n",
>> + if (cpu_num < 4 || !limit_console_output(false))
>> + printk(KERN_INFO
>> + "microcode: CPU%d sig=0x%x, pf=0x%x, revision=0x%x\n",
>> cpu_num, csig->sig, csig->pf, csig->rev);
>>
>
> Hmm, I guess we wouldn't lose a lot by simply removing those messages
> completely. Per-cpu pf/revision is available via /sys anyway.
The reason for printing them is that the pf (possibly others?) can change
by the update and so the log has this info handy.
Kind regards
Tigran
Powered by blists - more mailing lists