From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:47:33 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] panic: Allow taint flag for warnings to be changed Message-Id: <20100322224733.9cf93a0a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> List-Id: References: <1269126097.18314.111.camel@localhost> <1269126340.18314.115.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1269126340.18314.115.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Ben Hutchings Cc: Jesse Barnes , David Woodhouse , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, LKML , linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:05:40 +0000 Ben Hutchings 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.