[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1287102599.4194.19.camel@concordia>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:29:59 +1100
From: Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>
To: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ibm.com>
Cc: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>, Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
Linas Vepstas <linasvepstas@...il.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ppc: don't override CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES_DEBUG
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 17:23 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 15.10.2010 [11:14:23 +1100], Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 10:48 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > Because the lpar and pci_dlpar code is pretty low-level & verbose,
> > > perhaps it makes sense to add another Kconfig variable for really
> > > low-level stuff? But it's annoying to have DEBUG *somewhat* effective,
> > > especially in the EEH area when doing PCI stuff.
> >
> > I really don't think you want to enable the lpar debug by default.
> > Have you tried it? It can make for a pretty unusable system, just
> > because of the console spam.
>
> Yeah, you're right. After enabling it, I had to kill my boot and start
> over w/o the lpar DEBUG on.
:)
> I assume dlpar_pci is similar?
That should be OK to enable I think. Suck it and see I guess.
> I dunno, would a patch to a least remove the EEH one be ok? Seems like
> it isn't super-verbose, and does have some handy output.
Yeah definitely. That undef was merged as part of a cleanup/fix patch
but shouldn't have been.
cheers
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists