[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y6hlebik.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:10:43 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] panic: Allow taint flag for warnings to be changed from TAINT_WARN
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> writes:
> WARN() is used in some places to report firmware or hardware bugs that
> are then worked-around. These bugs do not affect the stability of the
> kernel and should not set the usual TAINT_WARN flag. To allow for
> this, add WARN_TAINT() and WARN_TAINT_ONCE() macros that take a taint
> flag as argument.
>
> Architectures that implement warnings using trap instructions instead
> of calls to warn_slowpath_*() must now implement __WARN_TAINT(taint)
> instead of __WARN().
I guess this should enforce that at least some taint flag is set?
(e.g. with a BUILD_BUG_ON)
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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