Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/cpu/intel: Simplify F00F bug notice using pr_notice_once()

[H. Peter Anvin]

On May 18, 2026 2:17:13 PM PDT, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On 5/18/26 13:29, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>>> I think this pr_notice() is fine to remove.
>> Sure, I'll remove the notice and also convert the #ifdef
>> CONFIG_X86_F00F_BUG into IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_F00F_BUG).
>
>BTW... The basic trajectory these days is not to be so careful with
>32-bit-only gunk. If it's causing us any headache -- even a few lines of
>code -- it better be unambiguously crucial to functionality to stick around.
>
>In this case, the guy still running a Pentium classic is highly unlikely
>to be concerned about the kernel forgetting to add an F0 0F workaround.
>There are also unlikely to be Pentiums sitting in data centers with log
>monitoring tools that are desperately looking for that F0 0F hunk in dmesg.
>
>The most likely thing is: there are a few dozen Pentiums (if that) out
>there running mainline kernels. I'm not sure they even have more than a
>couple of distros they can run. Nobody is going to notice this message
>going away.

Just nuke the text. It's pointless; we have many other bug workarounds we are less noisy about.