Re: [patch] x86: microcode: Cosmetic changes

[Giacomo Catenazzi <cate@debian.org>]

Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 01:15:12PM +0200, Ben Castricum wrote:
>  > @@ -805,6 +806,9 @@ static int __init microcode_init (void)
>  >  {
>  >  	int error;
>  >  
>  > +	printk(KERN_INFO
>  > +		"IA-32 Microcode Update Driver: v" MICROCODE_VERSION " <tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>\n");
>  > +
>  >  	error = microcode_dev_init();
>  >  	if (error)
>  >  		return error;
>  > @@ -825,9 +829,6 @@ static int __init microcode_init (void)
>  >  	}
>  >  
>  >  	register_hotcpu_notifier(&mc_cpu_notifier);
>  > -
>  > -	printk(KERN_INFO 
>  > -		"IA-32 Microcode Update Driver: v" MICROCODE_VERSION " <tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>\n");
>  >  	return 0;
> 
> By doing this before the registration of the sysdev, we'll
> now be printing this on machines that don't have the microcode
> update facility.   Pointless spew, for no obvious gain imo.
> 
> [Why we go through so many hoops before we check if the CPU is
>  capable is a mystery to me. It would make more sense to have
>  that be the first thing that gets checked when this inits]

I would remove the printk:
- it is the only email on my dmesg, along two other copyright
  notices (Ingo and Intel). So it seems that the dmesg clean-up
  is going on.
- the code of driver is stable, and now it is updated only in
  kernel trees, so IMO it is better to use kernel version on
  bug report. BTW I don't think people will update the version
  number of driver.
- IMO it is enough to printk the microcode loads, not the
  driver load.

ciao
	cate