All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>,
	Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Shorten efi regions output
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:46:28 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141210104627.GA17053@pd.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141210021741.GA3280@darkstar.nay.redhat.com>

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:17:41AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> I have same feeling with you, it is too long for most of people.
>
> Since the printk code are for EFI_DEBUG, they are around the #ifdef
> so I would like to see a kernel param like efi_debug=on, so only
> efi_debug is specified then these verbose messages are printed.
> Without the param kernel can print some basic infomation about the
> memory ranges.
>
> In arm64 code there's already a uefi_debug param it can be moved to
> general code so that there will be a goable switch.

Hmm, makes sense to me. Maybe we should really hide those behind a
debug switch, the question is whether asking the user to boot with
"efi_debug=on" in order to see the regions is ok. And I think it is ok
because we do that when debugging other stuff so I don't see anything
different here.

And then when they're disabled by default, we don't really need to
shorten them as they're pure debug output then.

Matt?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Borislav Petkov <bp-Gina5bIWoIWzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
To: Dave Young <dyoung-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: linux-efi <linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	Laszlo Ersek <lersek-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel
	<ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
	Matt Fleming
	<matt.fleming-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	Ricardo Neri
	<ricardo.neri-calderon-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: Shorten efi regions output
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:46:28 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141210104627.GA17053@pd.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141210021741.GA3280-4/PLUo9XfK+sDdueE5tM26fLeoKvNuZc@public.gmane.org>

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:17:41AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> I have same feeling with you, it is too long for most of people.
>
> Since the printk code are for EFI_DEBUG, they are around the #ifdef
> so I would like to see a kernel param like efi_debug=on, so only
> efi_debug is specified then these verbose messages are printed.
> Without the param kernel can print some basic infomation about the
> memory ranges.
>
> In arm64 code there's already a uefi_debug param it can be moved to
> general code so that there will be a goable switch.

Hmm, makes sense to me. Maybe we should really hide those behind a
debug switch, the question is whether asking the user to boot with
"efi_debug=on" in order to see the regions is ok. And I think it is ok
because we do that when debugging other stuff so I don't see anything
different here.

And then when they're disabled by default, we don't really need to
shorten them as they're pure debug output then.

Matt?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

  reply	other threads:[~2014-12-10 10:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-12-09  9:58 Shorten efi regions output Borislav Petkov
2014-12-09  9:58 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-12-09 12:42 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2014-12-09 12:42   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2014-12-09 12:48   ` Borislav Petkov
2014-12-09 12:48     ` Borislav Petkov
2014-12-09 15:35 ` Laszlo Ersek
2014-12-09 15:35   ` Laszlo Ersek
2014-12-09 16:45   ` Borislav Petkov
2014-12-09 16:45     ` Borislav Petkov
2014-12-10  2:17 ` Dave Young
2014-12-10  2:17   ` Dave Young
2014-12-10 10:46   ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2014-12-10 10:46     ` Borislav Petkov
2015-01-05 14:03     ` Matt Fleming
2015-01-05 14:03       ` Matt Fleming
2015-01-05 15:00       ` Laszlo Ersek
2015-01-21  5:48         ` Jon Masters
2015-01-21 10:06           ` Borislav Petkov
2015-01-21 10:06             ` Borislav Petkov
2015-01-26 10:49             ` Matt Fleming
2015-01-30 16:43               ` [PATCH] efi, x86: Add a "debug" option to the efi= cmdline Borislav Petkov
2015-01-30 16:43                 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-01-30 16:58                 ` Laszlo Ersek
2015-01-30 16:58                   ` Laszlo Ersek
2015-01-30 18:06                 ` Randy Dunlap
2015-01-30 18:06                   ` Randy Dunlap
2015-01-30 21:17                   ` Borislav Petkov
2015-01-30 21:17                     ` Borislav Petkov
2015-02-04 12:18                   ` Parmeshwr Prasad
2015-02-04 12:18                     ` Parmeshwr Prasad
2015-02-05  3:18                 ` Dave Young
2015-02-05  3:18                   ` Dave Young
2015-02-05  8:11                   ` Borislav Petkov
2015-02-05  8:11                     ` Borislav Petkov
2015-02-05  8:41                     ` Dave Young
2015-02-05  8:41                       ` Dave Young
2015-02-05 10:44                       ` [PATCH v2] " Borislav Petkov
2015-02-05 10:44                         ` Borislav Petkov
2015-02-05 12:45                         ` Parmeshwr Prasad
2015-02-05 12:45                           ` Parmeshwr Prasad
2015-02-05 14:28                           ` Borislav Petkov
2015-02-06  6:00                             ` Parmeshwr Prasad
2015-02-06  6:00                               ` Parmeshwr Prasad
2015-02-06 10:49                               ` Borislav Petkov
2015-02-06 10:49                                 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-02-24 22:33                         ` Matt Fleming
2015-02-24 22:33                           ` Matt Fleming
2015-04-02 12:27 ` [tip:core/efi] x86/efi: " tip-bot for Borislav Petkov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20141210104627.GA17053@pd.tnic \
    --to=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
    --cc=lersek@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matt.fleming@intel.com \
    --cc=ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.