From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161385AbWJYUz4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:55:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161391AbWJYUz4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:55:56 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-03.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.57]:2476 "EHLO ms-smtp-03.nyroc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161386AbWJYUzz (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:55:55 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix generic WARN_ON message From: Steven Rostedt To: Pavel Machek Cc: Ingo Molnar , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <20061025100405.GB7658@elf.ucw.cz> References: <4535902E.1000608@goop.org> <20061018055542.GA14784@elte.hu> <20061025100405.GB7658@elf.ucw.cz> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:55:22 -0400 Message-Id: <1161809722.3207.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 12:04 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > > > > A warning is a warning, not a BUG. > > > > > - printk("BUG: warning at %s:%d/%s()\n", __FILE__, \ > > > + printk("WARNING at %s:%d %s()\n", __FILE__, \ > > > > i'm not really happy about this change. > > > > Firstly, most WARN_ON()s are /bugs/, not warnings ... If it's a real > > warning, a KERN_INFO printk should be done. > > > > Secondly, the reason i changed it to the 'BUG: ...' format is that i > > tried to make it easier for automated tools (and for users) to figure > > out that a kernel bug happened. > > Well... but the message is really bad. It leads to users telling us "I > hit BUG in kernel"... But they *did* hit a BUG. It just so happens that the BUG was fixable. We want this reported because a WARN_ON should *never* be hit unless there's a bug. If people start getting "WARNING" messages, they will more likely not be reporting them. As Ingo already said, if it is just a "warning" then a normal printk should be used. -- Steve