* Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 08:51:15AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > That message was cool and interesting back in the days when we wrote
> > lockdep ('hey, look ma, it really works!!'), but there hasn't been
> > any breakage in that area for a long time and it definitely does not
> > deserve one line of log spam per CPU! Especially if it messes up such
> > a nice CPU bootup table.
>
> Right. The comment in alternatives_enable_smp() talks about older
> binutils and could be a useful info if we encounter the issue again. Should I
> keep it or are we talking really old, i.e.
>
> obsolete-we-will-never-use-them-anywhere-and-if-someone-does-we-dont-care
>
> binutils?
See this commit from ~5 years ago:
17abecfe651c x86: fix up alternatives with lockdep enabled
I was thinking about removing the message back then. Nobody ever
complained: code patching is so fundamental to a properly functioning
Linux kernel that broken binutils would stick out like a sore thumb - and
not just related to lockdep.
So lets remove it.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
