From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v1] x86/apic: Reduce print level of CPU limit announcement Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 12:14:52 +0100 Message-ID: <20190327111452.GC32571@zn.tnic> References: <20190327090905.5588-1-leon@kernel.org> <20190327093844.GO22899@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> <55774b1a8c82e94b2796c992889929f1da905d9b.camel@perches.com> <20190327095337.GP22899@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> <20190327101133.GQ22899@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> <20190327101815.GB32571@zn.tnic> <20190327105024.GR22899@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190327105024.GR22899@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Leon Romanovsky Cc: Joe Perches , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , x86 , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-pm , LKML List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 12:50:24PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > It is how we are internally running verification and development, > with KERN_DEBUG level, we need it to catch bugs. And what is the big deal with seeing those messages? Why are *exactly* those two such a big problem and the gazillion other debug messages are fine? > This "some config option" is dynamic debug prints and most probably it > is enabled in your or any kernel developer in the world. I personally don't use it because it only gets in the way. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.