linux-kernel - Re: [patch v2] x86: reduce srat verbosity in the kernel log

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0911121316060.15756@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:20:40 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
cc:	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,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [patch v2] x86: reduce srat verbosity in the kernel log

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Mike Travis wrote:

> Also, I think in general that all the apic messages, unless they represent
> "system boot progress" should be displayed only when asked for, like with
> apic=debug or verbose?   Something more like:
> 

That's outside the scope of my patch.  My patch does what the title says, 
it reduces srat verbosity in the kernel log.  If an additional change 
would like to suppress that output with a kernel parameter, that's fine, 
but it's an additional change and not what I was addressing.

When posting a patchset like this where all patches are related for a 
common goal and one patch (mine) was proposed during the development of 
the set, it's normal to include that patch in future postings with proper 
attribution given by indicating an author other than yourself in the very 
first line of the email:

	From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>

and retaining your acked-by line, my signed-off-by line, and then adding 
your own signed-off-by line.

If a subsequent patch were to suppress this for kernels not using a 
certain parameter, I certainly wouldn't object to it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/