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 :)
cheers,
mauricio
