[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130207212145.GE2849@8bytes.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 22:21:53 +0100
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel_iommu: Disable vfio and kvm interrupt assignment
when unsafe
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 09:02:38PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Backtraces add visibility and have proven to be extremely useful in the
> past for getting people to actually *fix* broken BIOSes.
>
> When kerneloops.org was running, it also gave very good statistics which
> helped to apply pressure.
That is true in general, but does not apply to the two warnings in
question here. One warning checks for a hypothetical hardware problem
and the other warning could happen for several reasons, not only a
firmware bug.
It would make sense to put a warning in the respective places where a
firmware problem is detected, though. The parse_ioapics_under_ir()
function is a candidate where it would make sense, for example. But in
the error path of the intel_enable_irq_remapping() function a pr_warn
would do the same job.
Joerg
--
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