From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jes Sorensen Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:11:48 +0000 Subject: Re: [DMESG] cpumask_t in action Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org >>>>> "Matthew" = Matthew Wilcox writes: Matthew> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:22:02PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: Matthew> There's a number of things here that annoy me. One is the Matthew> stupid "Processor 8192/1 is spinning up". I would expect Matthew> "Processor 2/96 is spinning up", but why have this line at Matthew> all? I'd also like to see "Bringing up 3", "Processor 1 has Matthew> spun up..." and "CPU 1 IS NOW UP!" go away. That'd cut us Matthew> down to: >> CPU 3: 61 virtual and 50 physical address bits CPU 3: nasid 2, >> slice 2, cnode 1 CPU 3: base freq 0.000MHz, ITC ratio/2, ITC >> freq00.000MHz+/--1ppm Calibrating delay loop... 2241.08 BogoMIPS >> CPU3: CPU has booted. Starting migration thread for cpu 3 Matthew> A 40% reduction in per-cpu verbosity ;-) Why not turn it the other way and just report the success of booted CPUs and more detailed results for the CPUs that failed? I know there are cases where you want the debug info in case of tracking kernel bugs, but one could stick a compile time debug flag into the code for that case, 960 - 40% = 576 lines of guff is still way too much IMHO, especially over a serial console. Cheers, Jes