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  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]
Date:	Mon, 1 Mar 2010 01:43:54 +0530
From:	Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderlinux@...il.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Driver core: Reduce the level of request_firmware() 
	messages

Hello Rafael,

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> On Sunday 28 February 2010, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 13:13 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Sunday 28 February 2010, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
>> > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
>> > > >
>> > > > The messages from _request_firmware() informing that firmware is
>> > > > being requested or built-in firmware is going to be used are printed
>> > > > at KERN_INFO, which produces lots of noise on systems with huge
>> > > > numbers of AMD CPUs.  Reduce the level of these messages to
>> > > > KERN_DEBUG to get rid of that noise.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Which firmware we are using is very useful information. Because of
>> > > huge numbers of CPUs it seems noise then better provide the
>> > > information for first cpu and for the rest of the CPUs you can show by
>> > > KERN_DEBUG.
>> >
>> > That would have been better indeed, but the problem is _request_firmware()
>> > doesn't allow us to change the level of its messages on demand.
>>
>> Can we try this :
>>
>>       if (smp_processor_id())
>>               dev_dbg(..);
>>       else
>>               dev_info(..);
>
> Well, it doesn't look particularly nice, does it?
>
> Besides, say we're requesting firmware for a non-CPU device which happens
> to run on CPU1.  Then, dev_dbg() will be used, which most likely is not what we
> want.
>

Yes, you are right. But atleast can you try it once and show the
output with and without this.

Thanks,
--
Jaswinder.
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists