From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422768AbWJRSbV (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:31:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422769AbWJRSbV (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:31:21 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:14286 "EHLO mail.goop.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422768AbWJRSbU (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:31:20 -0400 Message-ID: <45367350.4070902@goop.org> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:32:48 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20061008) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix generic WARN_ON message References: <4535902E.1000608@goop.org> <20061018055542.GA14784@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20061018055542.GA14784@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > Firstly, most WARN_ON()s are /bugs/, not warnings ... If it's a real > warning, a KERN_INFO printk should be done. > It seems to me that either the warnings are really bugs, in which case they should be using BUG/BUG_ON, or they're not really bugs, in which case they should be presented differently. > 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, are they bugs or not? I think people are more confused by the "BUG" prefix and stacktrace than helped by it (even an experienced eye will glance-parse a BUG+stack trace as a serious oops-level problem rather than a warning). J J