From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Young Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] kernel, add bug_on_warn Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:32:51 +0800 Message-ID: <20141028023251.GD3329@darkstar.nay.redhat.com> References: <1414155207-29839-1-git-send-email-prarit@redhat.com> <544E8985.50203@akamai.com> <544E8BB8.8000707@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <544E8BB8.8000707@redhat.com> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Prarit Bhargava Cc: Jason Baron , Andi Kleen , Jonathan Corbet , kexec@lists.infradead.org, Rusty Russell , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Fabian Frederick , isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, "H. Peter Anvin" , Masami Hiramatsu , Andrew Morton , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, vgoyal@redhat.com List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org > > Seems reasonable-I'm wondering why you just don't call panic() in this > > case. The BUG() call at line '434' doesn't at anything since its just being > > called from panic.c. > > Hmm ... I didn't even think about that. > > > > > So something like 'panic_on_warn' would seem to be more appropriate > > in keeping with things like 'panic_on_oops' or 'panic_on_stackoverflow'. > > I like it a lot better that way too :) I'm changing it to panic_on_warn unless > anyone has any strenuous objections. I would vote for panic_on_warn, it will make more sense than bug_on_warn. Thanks Dave