From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161266AbWJRSkg (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:40:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161268AbWJRSkg (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:40:36 -0400 Received: from smtp104.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.214]:18524 "HELO smtp104.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1161266AbWJRSkf (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:40:35 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=lRUg5IZTTtLYq3h+iySbgrIKVW7D3+hbEQPTsNSLkkp8NbIjx8gxatbIAljb2BxdjI6OvA6tV6fem7dzFSdpTKd5i5Irz4LojU9Isg5/s9hqUAD1AkML3tPL4dRNrQNSExjJHR8u0VIYdECafTOsrUSx9EtkctlAFvQzxS30TP4= ; Message-ID: <45367521.4080209@yahoo.com.au> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 04:40:33 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051007 Debian/1.7.12-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge CC: Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix generic WARN_ON message References: <4535902E.1000608@goop.org> <20061018055542.GA14784@elte.hu> <45367350.4070902@goop.org> In-Reply-To: <45367350.4070902@goop.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > 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. No. A BUG() will terminate the current process which, aside from the loss of userspace data, can tangle up the kernel badly and deadlock or panic it. If a bug can be fixed up or otherwise will not result in unstable behaviour with continued operation, then it should be a WARN. > >> 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). Definitely a bug. If the condition is not a bug then the code calling WARN is, so it is a bug no matter how you look at it ;) -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com