From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: Shorten efi regions output Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:46:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20141210104627.GA17053@pd.tnic> References: <20141209095843.GA3990@pd.tnic> <20141210021741.GA3280@darkstar.nay.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141210021741.GA3280-4/PLUo9XfK+sDdueE5tM26fLeoKvNuZc@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Dave Young Cc: linux-efi , Laszlo Ersek , Ard Biesheuvel , Matt Fleming , Ricardo Neri , lkml List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:17:41AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > I have same feeling with you, it is too long for most of people. > > Since the printk code are for EFI_DEBUG, they are around the #ifdef > so I would like to see a kernel param like efi_debug=on, so only > efi_debug is specified then these verbose messages are printed. > Without the param kernel can print some basic infomation about the > memory ranges. > > In arm64 code there's already a uefi_debug param it can be moved to > general code so that there will be a goable switch. Hmm, makes sense to me. Maybe we should really hide those behind a debug switch, the question is whether asking the user to boot with "efi_debug=on" in order to see the regions is ok. And I think it is ok because we do that when debugging other stuff so I don't see anything different here. And then when they're disabled by default, we don't really need to shorten them as they're pure debug output then. Matt? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --