[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090114103727.GA2913@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:37:27 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Alain Knaff <alain@...ff.lu>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: The policy on initramfs decompression failure
* Alain Knaff <alain@...ff.lu> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Alain Knaff <alain@...ff.lu> wrote:
> >
> >> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>> And your argument makes little sense: if there is something wrong then one
> >>> looks at the logs _anyway_.
> >> Unfortunately, not everybody has the knowledge or equipment ready to set
> >> up a serial console... [...]
> >
> > By your argument the ton of warnings we emit in various situations are
> > wrong too and all should be panic()s.
>
> That is not my argument. I never said something like that.
I did not say that it is your argument, i said it is _by_ your argument:
i.e. it is a logical extension of your argument.
Exactly how is such a warning different from other warnings that the
kernel already emits? For which people supposedly have to set up a serial
console? (which they dont have to)
Answer: it is not different, and it is exactly as hard or easy to find as
the other ones. I.e. why should this warning get a special treatment? I
already told the kernel that i dont want a gzip ramfs image decompressor
by turning off the (otherwise default-enabled) option. panic()ing on that
decision, overriding my decision and escallating it into a non-working
system is silly and a bug.
Ingo
--
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