[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1269199521.18314.220.camel@localhost>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:25:21 +0000
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
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
On Sun, 2010-03-21 at 20:10 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 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)
I'm being a bit sloppy with the wording here. The TAINT_* macros are
actually bit numbers, not flags. I could define a TAINT_MAX and add:
BUILD_BUG_ON(taint < 0 || taint > TAINT_MAX);
Not sure that that's really worth doing though.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
If you seem to know what you are doing, you'll be given more to do.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists