Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751877AbdHBEq5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Aug 2017 00:46:57 -0400 Received: from paleale.coelho.fi ([176.9.41.70]:41686 "EHLO farmhouse.coelho.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751154AbdHBEqz (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Aug 2017 00:46:55 -0400 Message-ID: <1501649208.2588.55.camel@coelho.fi> From: Luca Coelho To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o?= Paulo Rechi Vita Cc: linuxwifi , "kvalo@codeaurora.org" , "jprvita@gmail.com" , "Berg, Johannes" , "Grumbach, Emmanuel" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "linux@endlessm.com" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 07:46:48 +0300 In-Reply-To: References: <20170721145147.7572-1-jprvita@endlessm.com> <1500894086.20057.12.camel@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 91.156.4.241 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: luca@coelho.fi Subject: Re: [PATCH] iwlwifi: Demote messages about fw flags size to info X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Tue, 02 Aug 2016 21:08:31 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on farmhouse.coelho.fi) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1369 Lines: 44 Hi João Paulo, On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 15:58 -0700, João Paulo Rechi Vita wrote: > Hello Luca, > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 4:01 AM, Coelho, Luciano > wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 07:51 -0700, João Paulo Rechi Vita wrote: > > (...) > > > > Currently these messages are presented to the user during boot if there > > > is no bootsplash covering the console, sometimes even if the boot splash > > > is enabled but has not started yet by the time this message is shown. > > > > > I should have provided another piece of information here: all of this > happens even when booting with the 'quiet' kernel parameter. Oh, okay, that's annoying. > > This specific case is harmless, but I'd rather keep this message as an > > error, because in other situations it could lead to unexpected > > behavioir, so I prefer to keep it very visible. > > > > > > I see your point, and I understand the purpose of these messages. I'm > wondering if perhaps having them at the warning level would give them > enough visibility, while still keeping a clean boot process to the end > user. If so, I can send an updated patch. > > Thanks for your reply and for pointing to the fix for the root cause > of that message. Sure, I agree it's better to make it use IWL_WARN(), which will generate a dev_warn() instead of a dev_err(). -- Cheers, Luca.