On 24.01.2024 16:55, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 24/01/2024 3:21 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Observing
>>
>> "Testing NMI watchdog on all CPUs: 0 stuck"
>>
>> it felt like it's not quite right, but I still read it as "no CPU stuck;
>> all good", when really the system suffered from what 6bdb965178bb
>> ("x86/intel: ensure Global Performance Counter Control is setup
>> correctly") works around. Convert this to
>>
>> "Testing NMI watchdog on all CPUs: {0} stuck"
>>
>> or, with multiple CPUs having an issue, e.g.
>>
>> "Testing NMI watchdog on all CPUs: {0,40} stuck"
>>
>> to make more obvious that a lone number is not a count of CPUs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
>
> I'd forgotten it was still opencoded like this.
>
> Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>,
Thanks (Roger, also to you).
> but if you felt
> turning this into using a scratch cpumask and %*pb then I think that
> would be nicer still.
I expected you might say that, and indeed I considered it. But then
I wanted to keep code churn limited. The way it's done it's imo an
almost purely mechanical change. Much like with Roger's consideration
of further refining the message text in the error case.
Jan
