Mauricio Faria de Oliveira <mauri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > On 03/13/2018 03:36 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:13:11 -0300 >> Mauricio Faria de Oliveira<mauri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> >>> On 03/13/2018 02:59 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote: >>>> Maybe it would make more sense to move the messages to the function >>>> that actually patches in the instructions? > >>> That helps, but if the instructions are not patched (e.g., >>> no_rfi_flush) then there is no information about what the system >>> actually supports, which is useful for diagnostics/debugging (and >>> patch verification!:-) ) > >> Can't you patch with debugfs in that case? > > For development purposes, yes, sure; but unfortunately sometimes only a > dmesg output or other offline/postmortem data is available. > > And there's the user case where he is not aware/willing/allowed to use > the debugfs switch. > > I still think the correct, informative messages are a good way to go :)
Yeah I agree. We probably want to do both, print what's available at boot, and print what's actually patched when the patching happens. cheers
