On Fri, 2020-03-27 at 18:04 +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 2020-03-27 1:02 pm, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > > Hello Joerg, > > > > Thanks for reviewing. > > > > I understand this change bears some controversy > > for IOMMU, as developers are probably used to see these > > messages. > > > > On Fri, 2020-03-27 at 10:50 +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 06:49:56PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > > > > These user messages are not really informational, > > > > but mostly of debug nature. Lower their severity. > > > > > > Like most other messages in the kernel log, that is not a reason to > > > lower the severity. > > > > > > These messages are the first thing to look at when > > > looking into IOMMU related issues. > > > > > > > Sure, but the messages are still here, you can > > always enable them when you are looking at IOMMU issues :-) > > That still begs the question of who "you" is and how they know they're > debugging an IOMMU issue in the first place. When all the developer has > to go on is a third-hand bugzilla attachment from a distro user's vague > report of graphics corruption/poor I/O performance/boot > failure/whatever, being able to tell straight away from a standard dmesg > dump whether an IOMMU is even in the picture or not saves a lot of > protracted back-and-forth for everyone involved. > > The idea is to reduce the amount of verbosity in the kernel. > > Under what justification? Users with slow consoles or who just want a > quiet boot are already free to turn down the loglevel; a handful of > messages at boot-time and device hotplug seem hardly at risk of drowning > out all the systemd audit spam anyway. Note that the IOMMU subsystem is > by nature a little atypical as a lot of what it does is only visible as > secondary effects on other drivers and subsystems, without their > explicit involvement or knowledge. In that respect, hiding its activity > can arguably lead to more non-obvious situations than many other subsystems. > > > If all subsystems would print messages that are useful > > when looking at issues, things would be quite nasty verbose. > > From a personal standpoint, can we at least eradicate all the "Hi! I'm > a driver/subsystem you don't even have the hardware for!" messages > first, then maybe come back and reconsider the ones that convey actual > information later? >
Do we really still have those??? Thanks, Ezequiel _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
