From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932289AbaEPSgt (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 May 2014 14:36:49 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:41529 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752716AbaEPSgs (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 May 2014 14:36:48 -0400 Message-ID: <53765ABB.50602@infradead.org> Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 11:36:43 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Borislav Petkov , lkml CC: x86-ml , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: Cleanup console loglevels References: <20140516174921.GA18778@pd.tnic> <20140516175154.GA18834@pd.tnic> In-Reply-To: <20140516175154.GA18834@pd.tnic> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/16/2014 10:51 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 07:49:21PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> Hi, >> >> so I was staring at >> >> 12544697f12e ("x86_64: be less annoying on boot, v2") >> >> and how naked numbers mean sh*t and how I have to grep sources to find >> out what this 10 thing means. So how about the following cleanup? We can >> do it this way, we can do accessors and stuff, whatever. But the naked >> numbers are plain misleading. >> >> So how about it? I'm asking whether it makes sense first before I go >> and replace all tests of console_loglevel with naked numbers around the >> tree. >> >> Thanks. >> >> --- >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c >> index 068054f4bf20..0029d974e431 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c >> @@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init x86_64_start_kernel(char * real_mode_data) >> */ >> load_ucode_bsp(); >> >> - if (console_loglevel == 10) >> + if (console_loglevel >= CONSOLE_LOGLEVEL_QUIET) > > That's CONSOLE_LOGLEVEL_DEBUG, of course. > > See, misleading. :-P > Absolutely. I'll ack it with that change. -- ~Randy