On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 11:54 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Davidlohr Bueso > <davidlohr.bu...@hp.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 10:29 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bu...@hp.com> > >> wrote: > >> > This provides nicer message output. Since it seems more appropriate > >> > for the nature of this module, also use KERN_INFO instead of other > >> > levels. > >> > >> Why are you changing the ALERTs to INFO? > > > > Because of the nature of the messages. They don't justify having a > > KERN_ALERT level (requiring immediate attention), and it seems a lot > > more suitable to use INFO instead. > > > > Hmm. I see interval_tree_test using the same alerts. It almost looks > like the start and end of a test are meant to be alerts. I am not > saying it shouldn't be changed, however looking for a stronger reason > than "it seems a lot more suitable to use INFO instead". Are there any > use-cases in which KERN_ALERTs cause problems? >
No 'issue' particularly, just common sense. In any case I have no problem reverting the changes back to KERN_ALERT, no big deal. Andrew, Michel, do you have any preferences? I'm mostly interested in patch 3/3, do you have any objections? Thanks, Davidlohr -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/