Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] ACPI: processor: Get rid of ACPICA message
 printing
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
CC:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <5138173.kHyPcihzTF@kreacher> <10245832.OiMb8u2cOm@kreacher>
 <0faea0bd-107b-5c4c-5324-e0cd5e5cfba4@huawei.com>
 <CAJZ5v0i01rX0b-=dDJEdGsK2=6D3tXbC_wdOByTF_mJ0ggTPJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0hwouj_1KpZ_RrC3r50RxngvinBBJVgNhQkwA3bw0oXag@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <816edceb-983b-03d7-4a96-d325658417fd@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Feb 2021 22:17:40 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0hwouj_1KpZ_RrC3r50RxngvinBBJVgNhQkwA3bw0oXag@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2021/2/25 2:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 3:45 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 12:31 PM Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2021/2/23 2:59, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
>>>> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
>>>
>>> In this file, function acpi_processor_cstate_first_run_checks()
>>> has a wrong pr_notice():
>>>
>>> pr_notice("ACPI: processor limited to max C-state %d\n",
>>>                  max_cstate);
>>>
>>> Since we have pr_fmt() for this file, "ACPI:" is duplicate,
>>> we'd better cleanup this as below:
>>>
>>> pr_notice("processor limited to max C-state %d\n", max_cstate);
>>
>> Thanks for pointing this out, I'll make this change when applying the patch.
> 
> Actually, this issue is not strictly related to the patch here, so I'm
> going to send a separate patch to fix it.

Make sense to me as well.

Thanks
Hanjun