From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756416AbcECUQt (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 May 2016 16:16:49 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:52150 "EHLO relay3-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756382AbcECUQr (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 May 2016 16:16:47 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 50.39.163.18 Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 13:16:39 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: Josh Boyer Cc: Matt Fleming , linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/efi-bgrt: Switch all pr_err() to pr_notice() for invalid BGRT Message-ID: <20160503201639.GA29271@x> References: <1462297624-3003-1-git-send-email-jwboyer@fedoraproject.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1462297624-3003-1-git-send-email-jwboyer@fedoraproject.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 01:47:04PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > The promise of pretty boot splashes from firmware via BGRT was at > best only that; a promise. The kernel diligently checks to make > sure the BGRT data firmware gives it is valid, and dutifully warns > the user when it isn't. However, it does so via the pr_err log > level which seems unnecessary. The user cannot do anything about > this and there really isn't an error on the part of Linux to > correct. > > This lowers the log level by using pr_notice instead. Users will > no longer have their boot process uglified by the kernel reminding > us that firmware can and often is broken when the 'quiet' kernel > parameter is specified. Ironic, considering BGRT is supposed to > make boot pretty to begin with. > > Signed-off-by: Josh Boyer Whitespace nit below that I missed on my initial review. I don't think it's worth holding up the patch queue for. > --- a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi-bgrt.c > +++ b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi-bgrt.c > @@ -43,40 +43,40 @@ void __init efi_bgrt_init(void) > return; > > if (bgrt_tab->header.length < sizeof(*bgrt_tab)) { > - pr_err("Ignoring BGRT: invalid length %u (expected %zu)\n", > + pr_notice("Ignoring BGRT: invalid length %u (expected %zu)\n", > bgrt_tab->header.length, sizeof(*bgrt_tab)); On this and other lines with continuations, the continuation line was indented to match the 'pr_err('; changing that to 'pr_notice(' makes that continuation indentation no longer make sense. Perhaps it should change to a single tab, rather than attempting to line up with the start of the first argument? - Josh Triplett