On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 09:22:38AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Len Brown wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >
> > >> + pr_debug("cpu_init_udelay quirk to %d, was %d", new_udelay,
> > >> init_udelay);
> > >
> > > Can we make this printk(KERN_DEBUG
(Resending my reply with more dyn-debug folks Cc:-ed)
* Len Brown wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> >> + pr_debug("cpu_init_udelay quirk to %d, was %d", new_udelay,
> >> init_udelay);
> >
> > Can we make this printk(KERN_DEBUG please?
> >
> > I'd like
* Len Brown wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> >> + pr_debug("cpu_init_udelay quirk to %d, was %d", new_udelay,
> >> init_udelay);
> >
> > Can we make this printk(KERN_DEBUG please?
> >
> > I'd like to be able to slap "debug" on the command line and not
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 09:22:38AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Len Brown l...@kernel.org wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
+ pr_debug(cpu_init_udelay quirk to %d, was %d, new_udelay,
init_udelay);
Can we make this
(Resending my reply with more dyn-debug folks Cc:-ed)
* Len Brown l...@kernel.org wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
+ pr_debug(cpu_init_udelay quirk to %d, was %d, new_udelay,
init_udelay);
Can we make this printk(KERN_DEBUG please?
* Len Brown l...@kernel.org wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
+ pr_debug(cpu_init_udelay quirk to %d, was %d, new_udelay,
init_udelay);
Can we make this printk(KERN_DEBUG please?
I'd like to be able to slap debug on the command line
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:15:42PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> I agree with you. Further, you made me think about it, and while it
> was helpful when I wrote the patch, I don't think any printk() is
> needed upstream.
Yeah, you're right.
If a user did override it with cpu_init_udelay, it'll be in
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> + pr_debug("cpu_init_udelay quirk to %d, was %d", new_udelay,
>> init_udelay);
>
> Can we make this printk(KERN_DEBUG please?
>
> I'd like to be able to slap "debug" on the command line and not
> recompile the kernel. And no,
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:37:55AM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> From: Len Brown
>
> Modern processor familes are on a white-list to remove
> the costly cpu_init_udelay 1. Unknown processor families
> get the traditional 10ms delay in cpu_up().
>
> This seemed more efficient than forcing
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 09:51:11AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > +static const struct x86_cpu_id init_udelay_ids[] = {
> > + { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 0x6, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
> > + { X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x16, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
> > + { X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x15,
* Len Brown wrote:
> From: Len Brown
>
> Modern processor familes are on a white-list to remove
> the costly cpu_init_udelay 1. Unknown processor families
> get the traditional 10ms delay in cpu_up().
>
> This seemed more efficient than forcing modern processors
> to exhaustively search
From: Len Brown
Modern processor familes are on a white-list to remove
the costly cpu_init_udelay 1. Unknown processor families
get the traditional 10ms delay in cpu_up().
This seemed more efficient than forcing modern processors
to exhaustively search a black-list having all the old
From: Len Brown len.br...@intel.com
Modern processor familes are on a white-list to remove
the costly cpu_init_udelay 1. Unknown processor families
get the traditional 10ms delay in cpu_up().
This seemed more efficient than forcing modern processors
to exhaustively search a black-list
* Len Brown l...@kernel.org wrote:
From: Len Brown len.br...@intel.com
Modern processor familes are on a white-list to remove
the costly cpu_init_udelay 1. Unknown processor families
get the traditional 10ms delay in cpu_up().
This seemed more efficient than forcing modern
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 09:51:11AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
+static const struct x86_cpu_id init_udelay_ids[] = {
+ { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 0x6, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
+ { X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x16, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
+ { X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x15, X86_MODEL_ANY,
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:37:55AM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
From: Len Brown len.br...@intel.com
Modern processor familes are on a white-list to remove
the costly cpu_init_udelay 1. Unknown processor families
get the traditional 10ms delay in cpu_up().
This seemed more efficient than
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
+ pr_debug(cpu_init_udelay quirk to %d, was %d, new_udelay,
init_udelay);
Can we make this printk(KERN_DEBUG please?
I'd like to be able to slap debug on the command line and not
recompile the kernel. And no,
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:15:42PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
I agree with you. Further, you made me think about it, and while it
was helpful when I wrote the patch, I don't think any printk() is
needed upstream.
Yeah, you're right.
If a user did override it with cpu_init_udelay, it'll be in
18 matches
Mail list logo
