[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100322224733.9cf93a0a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:47:33 -0400
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.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
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:05:40 +0000 Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> wrote:
> 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().
When you say they "must now implement", I assume that you mean that
they _do_ now implement, and that no additional architecture work is
needed.
> The architecture-specific changes here are untested and need to be
> reviewed by architecture maintainers.
That would be nice.
--
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