[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140118002926.GA22185@amd.pavel.ucw.cz>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 01:29:26 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kim Naru <kim.naru@....com>,
Aravind Gopalakrishnan <aravind.gopalakrishnan@....com>,
Sherry Hurwitz <sherry.hurwitz@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, CPU, AMD: Add workaround for family 16h, erratum
793
On Fri 2014-01-17 14:51:52, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/17/2014 02:50 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:28:06PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >> Would it make sense to printk() a warning?
> >
> > No because people come and start bitching about their dmesg containing
> > a warning and whether their hardware is b0rked without even reading the
> > actual words.
Have you checked your dmesg recently? Normal people don't read
it... it is just too much of it.
> Printing a warning is appropriate if we can't actually fix the problem
> in the OS. If we actually make the problem go away then we have just
> done our job and we can be done with it.
I disagree. Older kernel versions still may have problem, etc.
We normally do print warnings for problems we work around. We want
vendors to fix their hardware, too...
ACPI BIOS Warning (bug): 32/64X FACS address mismatch in FADT -
0xBDB5FF40/0x00000000BDB64F40, using 32 (20131115/tbfadt-522)
[Firmware Bug]: ACPI: BIOS _OSI(Linux) query ignored
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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