[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080917144558.6ed2e6b8@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:45:58 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: warn: Turn the netdev timeout WARN_ON() into a WARN()
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:39:07 -0400
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:
\
>
> ACK, this fixes my objection, thanks
ok
> > If all the networking guys agree that the report
> > has no value for developers because they're all unfixable hardware
> > bugs,
>
> You misunderstand; reporting and tracking these issues have value,
> but the information you are dumping (specifically the backtrace) does
> not.
WARN() is about a lot more than a backtrace, but point taken, see below
>
> I think it would benefit Linux if our bugs announce themselves in a
> standard way, but the backtrace is not a key part of that, and IMO
> should be optional.
I cannot disagree with the "the backtrace is not useful" statement for
this case. I don't even mind making a WARN() variant that doesn't
backtrace; I'll look into that. I don't consider it "2.6.27 urgent"
though; a backtrace is pretty light to do for such an exceptional
slowpath case, and the only real effect is a few lines
in /var/log/messages that are somewhat redundant.
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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