Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:39:35 -0500 | From | Josef Sipek <> | Subject | Re: oops pauser. / boot_delayer |
| |
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 12:08:27AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Ne 08-01-06 14:30:00, Josef Sipek wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 02:21:32PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Pá 06-01-06 00:36:09, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > So disable CONFIG_CRYPTO_TEST. There's no reason to test this stuff every boot. > > > > > > Maybe even with CRYPTO_TEST enabled we could only report _failures_? > > > > Why? As far as I know, it is intended for developers as a regression test. I say > > if you don't like the output, make the thing a module or don't compile it at all. > > I don't like the output, but if it only reported failures, I could > leave it running and potentially catch some strange failures.
I agree that it is useful to know about strange failures, however I still maintain that _if_ the module is intended as a regression test for developers, than the excessive (?) output is fair. I think that the most logical course of action is to have a verbosity module paramter which defaults to displaying errors only, but it still allows developers to get all the information they need.
> Is reporting successes actually useful?
Then I propose: :)
diff -r b4fca0ece97f kernel/sys.c --- a/kernel/sys.c Sat Oct 22 19:24:10 2005 +0300 +++ b/kernel/sys.c Sun Jan 8 18:26:49 2006 -0500 @@ -436,7 +436,6 @@ void kernel_halt(void) { kernel_halt_prepare(); - printk(KERN_EMERG "System halted.\n"); machine_halt(); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kernel_halt); Jeff.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |