linux-kernel - Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86/smpboot: Fix announce_cpu() to printk() the last "OK" properly

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:48:50 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	huawei.libin@...wei.com, wangyijing@...wei.com,
	fenghua.yu@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de, guohanjun@...wei.com,
	paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86/smpboot: Fix announce_cpu() to printk() the
 last "OK" properly

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 08:51:15AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> That message was cool and interesting back in the days when we wrote
> lockdep ('hey, look ma, it really works!!'), but there hasn't been
> any breakage in that area for a long time and it definitely does not
> deserve one line of log spam per CPU! Especially if it messes up such
> a nice CPU bootup table.

Right. The comment in alternatives_enable_smp() talks about older
binutils and could be a useful info if we encounter the issue again. Should I
keep it or are we talking really old, i.e.

obsolete-we-will-never-use-them-anywhere-and-if-someone-does-we-dont-care

binutils?

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/