Re: The policy on initramfs decompression failure

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Alain Knaff <alain@knaff.lu> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Alain Knaff <alain@knaff.lu> wrote:
> > 
> >> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>> And your argument makes little sense: if there is something wrong then one 
> >>> looks at the logs _anyway_.
> >> Unfortunately, not everybody has the knowledge or equipment ready to set
> >> up a serial console... [...]
> > 
> > By your argument the ton of warnings we emit in various situations are 
> > wrong too and all should be panic()s.
> 
> That is not my argument. I never said something like that.

I did not say that it is your argument, i said it is _by_ your argument: 
i.e. it is a logical extension of your argument.

Exactly how is such a warning different from other warnings that the 
kernel already emits? For which people supposedly have to set up a serial 
console? (which they dont have to)

Answer: it is not different, and it is exactly as hard or easy to find as 
the other ones. I.e. why should this warning get a special treatment? I 
already told the kernel that i dont want a gzip ramfs image decompressor 
by turning off the (otherwise default-enabled) option. panic()ing on that 
decision, overriding my decision and escallating it into a non-working 
system is silly and a bug.

	Ingo