[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190327105024.GR22899@mtr-leonro.mtl.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 12:50:24 +0200
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
linux-pm <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v1] x86/apic: Reduce print level of CPU limit
announcement
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:18:15AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 12:11:33PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > ok, I tested your variant and it still prints a t least on my systems,
>
> Probably because your loglevel is set to debug. And no, we don't want to
> have to enable some config option in order to see this.
It is how we are internally running verification and development,
with KERN_DEBUG level, we need it to catch bugs.
This "some config option" is dynamic debug prints and most probably it
is enabled in your or any kernel developer in the world.
Please let me know, If you insist on changing pr_debug to printk(KERN_DEBUG ...).
>
> Also, the ugly linebreak needs to go.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists