From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753387Ab1LSXdD (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:33:03 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35343 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753138Ab1LSXc7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:32:59 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:32:47 -0500 From: Dave Jones To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, trenn@suse.de, kay.sievers@vrf.org, Andi Kleen , kay.sievers@vrfy.org, axboe@kernel.dk, herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au, ying.huang@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] crypto: Add support for x86 cpuid auto loading for x86 crypto drivers Message-ID: <20111219233247.GC570@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, trenn@suse.de, kay.sievers@vrf.org, Andi Kleen , kay.sievers@vrfy.org, axboe@kernel.dk, herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au, ying.huang@intel.com References: <1324334865-30459-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <1324334865-30459-4-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <20111219232246.GB570@redhat.com> <4EEFC7D2.70803@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EEFC7D2.70803@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 03:25:06PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > - if (!cpu_has_phe) { > > > - printk(KERN_NOTICE PFX "VIA PadLock Hash Engine not detected.\n"); > > > - return -ENODEV; > > > - } > > > - > > > - if (!cpu_has_phe_enabled) { > > > - printk(KERN_NOTICE PFX "VIA PadLock detected, but not enabled. Hmm, strange...\n"); > > > + if (!x86_match_cpu(padlock_sha_ids) || !cpu_has_phe_enabled) > > > return -ENODEV; > > > - } > > > > don't we want to keep the printk ? > > > > Seems that if it's been disabled by the BIOS for some reason, it will now > > silently fail instead of printing a nice warning. > > The first printk is insanely annoying, because the end result is that we > get a printk of all the crypto engines that are *not* enabled... > arguably it would be somewhat nice to get a printk when a crypto engine > *is* enabled. Sorry, I just meant the second printk, which should hopefully not get printed by default. Dave