Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933140AbcLIMti convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2016 07:49:38 -0500 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:28710 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932659AbcLIMth (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2016 07:49:37 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,324,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="796123122" From: "Andrejczuk, Grzegorz" To: Thomas Gleixner , Pavel Machek CC: "mingo@redhat.com" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "x86@kernel.org" , "bp@suse.de" , "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" , "Daniluk, Lukasz" , "Cownie, James H" , "Pan, Jacob jun" , "Luc, Piotr" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: RE: [PATCH v6: 2/4] x86: Add enabling of the R3MWAIT during boot Thread-Topic: [PATCH v6: 2/4] x86: Add enabling of the R3MWAIT during boot Thread-Index: AQHSMFrIx4R57b7tPkCU8e7bNAqHeqC8TgSAgC8fpgCAAAF6gIAUZJLA Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:49:33 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1477576923-3244-1-git-send-email-grzegorz.andrejczuk@intel.com> <1477576923-3244-3-git-send-email-grzegorz.andrejczuk@intel.com> <20161126131542.GB20568@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 675 Lines: 17 > > On Thu 2016-10-27 16:38:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Grzegorz Andrejczuk wrote: > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 > > > > +static int phi_r3mwait_disabled __read_mostly; > > > > + > > > > +static int __init phir3mwait_disable(char *__unused) { > > > > + phi_r3mwait_disabled = 1; > > > > + pr_warn("x86/phir3mwait: Disabled ring 3 MWAIT for Xeon Phi"); > > > > > > Why would that be a warning? The sysadmin added the command line > > > switch, so why does he needs to be warned? > > > > Its telling admin he did not make a typo on the command line. We often do that.... > > Definitely not at the warning level. Is info level OK for that message?