Re: [PATCH] x86, cpu: trivial printk formatting fixes

[Steven Honeyman]

On 1 November 2014 17:19, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 03:44:56PM +0000, Steven Honeyman wrote:
>> A 2 line printk makes dmesg output messy, because the second line does not get a timestamp.
>> For example:
>>
>> [    0.012863] CPU0: Thermal monitoring enabled (TM1)
>> [    0.012869] Last level iTLB entries: 4KB 1024, 2MB 1024, 4MB 1024
>> Last level dTLB entries: 4KB 1024, 2MB 1024, 4MB 1024, 1GB 4
>> [    0.012958] Freeing SMP alternatives memory: 28K (ffffffff81d86000 - ffffffff81d8d000)
>> [    0.014961] dmar: Host address width 39
>
> It looks just fine here, albeit with repeated timestamp:
>
> $ dmesg | grep -E "[id]TLB"
> [    0.269607] Last level iTLB entries: 4KB 512, 2MB 1024, 4MB 512
> [    0.269607] Last level dTLB entries: 4KB 1024, 2MB 1024, 4MB 512, 1GB 0

That's strange! Is it the same for the other one? I just double
checked on the slight chance I had an alias causing problems etc, but
that wasn't the case:

$ 'dmesg'|'grep' ENERGY
[    0.010557] ENERGY_PERF_BIAS: Set to 'normal', was 'performance'
ENERGY_PERF_BIAS: View and update with x86_energy_perf_policy(8)
$ dmesg --version && grep --version
dmesg from util-linux 2.25.2
grep (GNU grep) 2.20


On 1 November 2014 17:17, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This changes the logging level.
>
> You should either mention why in the changelog
> or use pr_warn_once

OK, I will resubmit with a new description if needed.
Would you agree that info is a more suitable log level than warn for
this message? Even notice seemed too much, as it isn't a 'significant
condition'


Thanks,
Steven
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/