lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] x86: microcode: Cosmetic changes
Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 01:15:12PM +0200, Ben Castricum wrote:
> > @@ -805,6 +806,9 @@ static int __init microcode_init (void)
> > {
> > int error;
> >
> > + printk(KERN_INFO
> > + "IA-32 Microcode Update Driver: v" MICROCODE_VERSION " <tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>\n");
> > +
> > error = microcode_dev_init();
> > if (error)
> > return error;
> > @@ -825,9 +829,6 @@ static int __init microcode_init (void)
> > }
> >
> > register_hotcpu_notifier(&mc_cpu_notifier);
> > -
> > - printk(KERN_INFO
> > - "IA-32 Microcode Update Driver: v" MICROCODE_VERSION " <tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>\n");
> > return 0;
>
> By doing this before the registration of the sysdev, we'll
> now be printing this on machines that don't have the microcode
> update facility. Pointless spew, for no obvious gain imo.
>
> [Why we go through so many hoops before we check if the CPU is
> capable is a mystery to me. It would make more sense to have
> that be the first thing that gets checked when this inits]

I would remove the printk:
- it is the only email on my dmesg, along two other copyright
notices (Ingo and Intel). So it seems that the dmesg clean-up
is going on.
- the code of driver is stable, and now it is updated only in
kernel trees, so IMO it is better to use kernel version on
bug report. BTW I don't think people will update the version
number of driver.
- IMO it is enough to printk the microcode loads, not the
driver load.

ciao
cate


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-12 08:01    [W:0.060 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site