On Wed, 24 Jul 2019, Steven Price wrote: > On 24/07/2019 14:57, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > From your 14/N changelog: > > > >> This keeps the output shorter and will help with a future change > > > > I don't care about shorter at all. It's debug information. > > Sorry, the "shorter" part was because Dave Hansen originally said[1]: > > I think I'd actually be OK with the holes just not showing up. I > > actually find it kinda hard to read sometimes with the holes in there. > > I'd be curious what others think though. I missed that otherwise I'd have disagreed right away. > > I really do not understand why you think that WE no longer care about the > > level (and the size) of the holes. I assume that WE is pluralis majestatis > > and not meant to reflect the opinion of you and everyone else. > > Again, I apologise - that was sloppy wording in the commit message. By > "we" I meant the code not any particular person. Nothing to apologize. Common mistake of trying to impersonate code. That always reads wrong :) > > I have no idea whether you ever had to do serious work with PT dump, but I > > surely have at various occasions including the PTI mess and I definitely > > found the size and the level information from holes very useful. > > On arm64 we don't have those lines, but equally it's possible they might > be useful in the future. So this might be something to add. > > As I said in a previous email[3] I was dropping the lines from the > output assuming nobody had any objections. Since you find these lines > useful, I'll see about reworking the change to retain the lines. That would be great and as I saw in the other mail, Mark wants to have them as well :) That reminds me, that I had a patch when dealing with L1TF which printed the PFNs so I could verify that the mitigations do what they are supposed to do, but that patch got obviously lost somewhere down the road. Thanks, tglx
