[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090612154525.GA14438@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:45:25 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"riel@...hat.com" <riel@...hat.com>,
"chris.mason@...cle.com" <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] HWPOISON: define VM_FAULT_HWPOISON to 0 when
feature is disabled
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> So i find the whole feature rather dubious - what's the point? We
> should panic at this point - we just corrupted user data so that
> piece of hardware cannot be trusted. Nor can any subsequent kernel
> bug messages be trusted.
s/panic/print nasty message
Not sure what i was smoking there. Sysadmin will panic from a memory
corruption message anyway.
What feels wrong to me is: kill a process and - in the case where
that process is restartable or expendable - suggest to the admin
that "everything is fine, we handled it just fine".
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