From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753098AbaCJXGd (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:06:33 -0400 Received: from cpsmtpb-ews03.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.39.6]:50257 "EHLO cpsmtpb-ews03.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752213AbaCJXGb (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:06:31 -0400 Message-ID: <1394492789.16134.36.camel@x220> Subject: Re: [RESEND] Fast TSC calibration fails with v3.14-rc1 and later From: Paul Bolle To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Jerome Oufella , Julian Wollrath , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:06:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20140310110410.5b2218f6@ilfaris> <1394447253.2979.12.camel@x220> <1394465314.12752.18.camel@x220> <1394476346.12752.43.camel@x220> <1394479176.18058.10.camel@x41> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 (3.10.4-2.fc20) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2014 23:06:29.0603 (UTC) FILETIME=[5EE7CB30:01CF3CB5] X-RcptDomain: vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 21:50 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, Paul Bolle wrote: > > So could you please consider downgrading this message? > > > > Yes, this will make regressions less visible, although I'm unsure we're > > actually seeing a regression here. But I think that this is better than > > scaring people about a situation they can't easily do something about, > > if at all. Especially since fast TSC calibration failures, apparently, > > can be worked around. > > If something works fine from version X up to v3.13 and then suddenly > fails, then we can safely ignore it because there is a work around or > fallback? And just shrug and say: Oh, it's not a regression. That's not what I said, not at all. Saying that "I'm unsure we're actually seeing a regression" is not shrugging it off. > Dammit no. We want to know WHY! Here I am one and half year after reporting seeing this error. I'm not aware of anyone reporting it before me. Anyhow, I don't think things were working fine up to v3.13. And in my report (I'm not going to link to it again) I suggested to downgrade this message. My exact words were: So, without even understanding why tsc calibration is needed, it does look unnecessary to print "Fast TSC calibration failed" at error level. If that's correct, I'd be happy to submit the trivial patch to downgrade it to (say) informational level. Which was fine with hpa (added in CC). I actually submitted that patch, sent a reminder, and Jerome sent a similar patch. Most of that was directly sent to you too. I don't think we got any reaction whatsoever. And, still, suggesting this is not a regression and reiterating that this could also be printed at something else than error level somehow provoked your outburst. I'd like to discuss a way forward. But could you please _try_ to understand why I said what I said in this discussion? Paul Bolle