* Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 08:51:15AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > That message was cool and interesting back in the days when we wrote > > lockdep ('hey, look ma, it really works!!'), but there hasn't been > > any breakage in that area for a long time and it definitely does not > > deserve one line of log spam per CPU! Especially if it messes up such > > a nice CPU bootup table. > > Right. The comment in alternatives_enable_smp() talks about older > binutils and could be a useful info if we encounter the issue again. Should I > keep it or are we talking really old, i.e. > > obsolete-we-will-never-use-them-anywhere-and-if-someone-does-we-dont-care > > binutils? See this commit from ~5 years ago: 17abecfe651c x86: fix up alternatives with lockdep enabled I was thinking about removing the message back then. Nobody ever complained: code patching is so fundamental to a properly functioning Linux kernel that broken binutils would stick out like a sore thumb - and not just related to lockdep. So lets remove it. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html