On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 05:43:41PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> From: wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx @ 2024-03-04 6:57 UTC
> >
> > > +void __init ms_hyperv_late_init(void)
> > > +{
> > > + struct acpi_table_header *header;
> > > + acpi_status status;
> > > + u8 *randomdata;
> > > + u32 length, i;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Seed the Linux random number generator with entropy provided by
> > > + * the Hyper-V host in ACPI table OEM0. It would be nice to do this
> > > + * even earlier in ms_hyperv_init_platform(), but the ACPI subsystem
> > > + * isn't set up at that point. Skip if booted via EFI as generic EFI
> > > + * code has already done some seeding using the EFI RNG protocol.
> > > + */
> > > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) || efi_enabled(EFI_BOOT))
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + status = acpi_get_table("OEM0", 0, &header);
> > > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) || !header) {
> > > + pr_info("Hyper-V: ACPI table OEM0 not found\n");
> >
> > I would like this to be a pr_debug() instead of pr_info(), considering
> > using the negative case may cause users to think not having this table
> > can be problematic.
> >
> > Alternatively, we can remove this message here, and then ...
> >
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > ... add a pr_debug() here to indicate that the table was found.
> >
> > pr_info("Hyper-V: Seeding randomness with data from ACPI table OEM0\n");
>
> You wrote the code as "pr_info()" but your comment suggests "pr_debug()".
> I'm assuming pr_debug() is better because we don't really need any output
Yes, I meant to use pr_debug() here. Sorry for the confusion. The
pr_info() was a c&p error.
Thanks,
Wei.
