Re: [PATCH 1/5] MIPS: Bail on unsupported module relocs

Maciej W. Rozycki
2016-02-03T16:55:49Z

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Paul Burton wrote:

> > Hmm, this looks like a fatal error condition to me, the module won't
> > load. Why `pr_warn' rather than `pr_err' then? Likewise in the other
> > file.
>
> To me fatality implies death, and nothing dies here. The module isn't
> loaded but that's done gracefully & is not likely due to an error in the
> kernel - it's far more likely that the module isn't valid. So to me,
> warning seems appropriate rather than implying an error in the kernel.

It may be bikeshedding, however these levels affect what goes to syslog
and the console. There are `crit', `alert' and `emerg' levels above, to
raise more severe conditions. As to `warn' I'd expect one on a succesful
action made with some limitations, e.g. a compatibility mode of some kind,
running with a performance limitation, some functionality disabled, etc.
There's also `notice', which is lower, I'd use for normal actions that
might require operator's attention, e.g. I'd put switching a network
interface into the promiscuous mode there, due to its side effect on
overall system performance.

And I don't think it has to be a bug in the kernel to raise an `err'
condition. However I do agree the boundary here may be a bit fuzzy and
code you've been changing doesn't seem consistent either.

FWIW,

Maciej