* Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thursday 05 February 2009 13:02:03 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k8.c | 12 ++++++------
> > > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k8.c
> b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k8.c
> > > index 83515f1..5aa832f 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k8.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k8.c
> > > @@ -1247,12 +1247,12 @@ static int __cpuinit powernowk8_cpu_init(struct
> cpufreq_policy *pol)
> > > * thing gets introduced
> > > */
> > > if (!print_once) {
> > > - WARN_ONCE(1, KERN_ERR FW_BUG PFX "Your BIOS "
> > > - "does not provide ACPI _PSS objects "
> > > - "in a way that Linux understands. "
> > > - "Please report this to the Linux ACPI"
> > > - " maintainers and complain to your "
> > > - "BIOS vendor.\n");
> > > + printk(KERN_ERR FW_BUG PFX "Your BIOS "
> > > + "does not provide ACPI _PSS objects "
> > > + "in a way that Linux understands. "
> > > + "Please report this to the Linux ACPI"
> > > + " maintainers and complain to your "
> > > + "BIOS vendor.\n");
> > > print_once++;
> >
> > hm, why the open-coded WARN_ONCE? (which print_once flag + the printk in
> > essence is)
> >
> > So please use WARN_ONCE(), and indent it all one tab to the left which will
> > solve at least part of that ugly 6-line split up thing. And if it's a
> > WARN_ONCE() then kerneloops.org will pick it up too.
> No.
> This happens if your BIOS is older than your CPU and you then miss cpufreq.
> This often happens on very new machines/CPUs. It could also happen that you
> have to wait a month or so until your vendor offers a new BIOS.
>
> We want to tell the user that it's not the kernel's fault, but we better do
> not spit out a huge backtrace, which is worthless anyway as it's the BIOS
> which is broken.
That's fine and we can do that, but the text does not suggest that at all.
The text says "please report this to the Linux ACPI maintainers" and that
Linux does not understand this - and closes with the suggestion that this
should be reported to the BIOS vendor too. That tells, to the user, that at
minimum Linux is confused.
Such text directs the bugreports to _us_ kernel maintainers, not to the BIOS
vendors.
A much clearer text and implementation would be to do something like:
static const char ACPI_PSS_BIOS_BUG_MSG[] =
KERN_ERR "Your BIOS does not provide compatible ACPI _PSS objects.\n"
KERN_ERR "Complain to your BIOS vendor. This is not a kernel bug.\n";
[...]
if (!print_once) {
printk(ACPI_PSS_BIOS_BUG_MSG);
print_once = 1;
}
Note the improvements:
- No more ugly linebreaks.
- print_once++ was a poor solution as well - the standard thing is to set
'once' flags to 1 - once and forever.
- The 6-line split-up warning message does not obscure the code
itself anymore. The error condition is clear and clean and visually
unintrusive.
- The original message text had no linebreak and was about two full lines
long when printed - in a single line. If the kernel prints such messages
that looks sloppy and confusing. If watched via a serial line then the
overlong portion can even be missed at first sight.
- If someone hits that warning and sees it in the kernel log, then a
git grep ""Your BIOS does not provide compatible ACPI _PSS objects"
will come up with arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k8.c. With the
original code it would come up empty and the user/developer would perhaps
thing that it's perhaps the distro kernel that prints that warning, not
the upstream kernel.
Could you please fix it in that fashion? Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
