From bd7242fa7f45a783695857e1a0b6b0f416a7a5d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Artur Grabowski <art@cvs.openbsd.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 01:16:37 +0000
Subject: There are so many reasons why a printf in an ipi is a very bad idea.
 Especially since it doesn't add anything but spam during reboot.

---
 sys/arch/amd64/amd64/ipifuncs.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

(limited to 'sys/arch/amd64')

diff --git a/sys/arch/amd64/amd64/ipifuncs.c b/sys/arch/amd64/amd64/ipifuncs.c
index 82043eb2a2e..15bb305184d 100644
--- a/sys/arch/amd64/amd64/ipifuncs.c
+++ b/sys/arch/amd64/amd64/ipifuncs.c
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/*	$OpenBSD: ipifuncs.c,v 1.2 2004/06/25 17:27:01 andreas Exp $	*/
+/*	$OpenBSD: ipifuncs.c,v 1.3 2004/08/04 01:16:36 art Exp $	*/
 /*	$NetBSD: ipifuncs.c,v 1.1 2003/04/26 18:39:28 fvdl Exp $ */
 
 /*-
@@ -103,7 +103,6 @@ x86_64_ipi_halt(struct cpu_info *ci)
 {
 	disable_intr();
 
-	printf("%s: shutting down\n", ci->ci_dev->dv_xname);
 	for(;;) {
 		__asm __volatile("hlt");
 	}
-- 
cgit v1.2.3