[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8bnEgP6iXCL+QmX@zn.tnic>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 19:21:06 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
X86-kernel <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, alison.schofield@...el.com,
reinette.chatre@...el.com, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] x86/microcode/intel: Print when early microcode
loading fails
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 08:29:28AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> This ensures that a message of some kind is printed on all early loads:
> successes *and* failures. This should make it easier for our hapless
> users to figure out when a failure occurred.
I'm still not convinced. When something doesn't happen in the kernel, we don't
always say "It didn't happen". We don't say anything.
So I don't like all those talkative drivers for no good reason. If there wasn't
an update message, then no update happened. That's it.
And the current microcode revision is in /proc/cpuinfo.
If you wanna know why the update didn't happen, then you start adding debug
printks and trying things but then you're clearly not a user so you know what
you're doing.
And the log buffer can get overwritten sooner or later depending on its size so
any message can disappear.
So what's the point of this pointless exercise in verbosity?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists