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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>\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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>\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.