From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Auke Kok Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/23] e100: Add debugging code for cb cleaning and csum failures. Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:21:34 -0700 Message-ID: <45106D6E.6060602@intel.com> References: <20060919172623.4605.56860.stgit@gitlost.site> <20060919172838.4605.35958.stgit@gitlost.site> <20060919213336.GA29362@redhat.com> <451063D2.7020301@pobox.com> <20060919214612.GC31621@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff Garzik , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Brandeburg, Jesse" , "Kok, Auke" , "Ronciak, John" Return-path: Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:10686 "EHLO mga03.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751003AbWISWXL (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 18:23:11 -0400 To: Dave Jones In-Reply-To: <20060919214612.GC31621@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Dave Jones wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 05:40:34PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Dave Jones wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:28:38AM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote: > > > > + add_taint(TAINT_MACHINE_CHECK); > > > > > > I object to this flag being abused this way. > > > A corrupt EEPROM on a network card has _nothing_ to do with > > > a CPU machine check exception. > > > > Fair enough. Better suggestions? > > > > I think it's fair to set _some_ taint flag, perhaps a new one, on a > > known corrupted firmware. But if others disagree, I'll follow the > > consensus here. > > I don't object to a new flag, but overloading an existing flag that has > established meaning just seems wrong to me. > > Question is how many more types of random hardware failures are there > that we'd like to do similar things for ? > Perhaps a catch-all "H"ardware failure flag for assorted brokenness > would be better than a proliferation of flags? fine with me. I don't have a strong preference for any specific flag, but "H"ardware sounds reasonable. Auke