[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1222039667.6782.125.camel@californication>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 01:27:47 +0200
From: Marcel Holtmann <holtmann@...ux.intel.com>
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ipw2100-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, yi.zhu@...el.com,
reinette.chatre@...el.com, jgarzik@...ox.com,
linville@...driver.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: Mark IPW2100 as BROKEN: Fatal interrupt. Scheduling firmware
restart.
Hi Evgeniy,
> > > That allows to dump whatever number of warnings you want. The more we
> > > have, the louder will be customers scream.
> >
> > artificially increasing numbers isn't going to do that; it just shows
> > you're more interested in making a stink than in getting something
> > improved ;(
>
> As practice shows, I'm the only one who is interested in getting
> something improved, and Intel, as we see right now, is not interested in
> it at all, since you ask me not only decrease error verbosity, but also
> do not work towards fixing the bug by trying to understand where it
> lives.
as Arjan and Alan pointed out already, WARN_ON_ONCE is enough and I
agree with them. Just to make this perfectly clear, this is with my
community hat on.
Please send a proper patch with a simple WARN_ON_ONCE and I am happy to
sign off on it.
Regards
Marcel
--
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