[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1161809722.3207.3.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:55:22 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix generic WARN_ON message
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 12:04 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> >
> > > A warning is a warning, not a BUG.
> >
> > > - printk("BUG: warning at %s:%d/%s()\n", __FILE__, \
> > > + printk("WARNING at %s:%d %s()\n", __FILE__, \
> >
> > i'm not really happy about this change.
> >
> > Firstly, most WARN_ON()s are /bugs/, not warnings ... If it's a real
> > warning, a KERN_INFO printk should be done.
> >
> > Secondly, the reason i changed it to the 'BUG: ...' format is that i
> > tried to make it easier for automated tools (and for users) to figure
> > out that a kernel bug happened.
>
> Well... but the message is really bad. It leads to users telling us "I
> hit BUG in kernel"...
But they *did* hit a BUG. It just so happens that the BUG was fixable.
We want this reported because a WARN_ON should *never* be hit unless
there's a bug. If people start getting "WARNING" messages, they will
more likely not be reporting them.
As Ingo already said, if it is just a "warning" then a normal printk
should be used.
-- Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists