On 18 December 2014 at 20:19, Nishanth Menon <[email protected]> wrote: > I can add "could be unstable" -> the point being there can be psuedo > errors reported in the system - example - clock framework bugs. Dont > just stop the boot. example: what if cpufreq was a driver module - it > would not have rescued the system because cpufreq had'nt detected the > logic - if we are going to force this on the system, we should probably > not do this in cpufreq code, instead should be somewhere generic. > > While I do empathise (and had infact advocated in the past) of not > favouring system attempting to continue at an invalid configuration and > our attempt to rescue has failed - given that we cannot provide a > consistent behavior (it is not a core system behavior) and potential of > a false-postive (example clk framework or underlying bug), it should be > good enough to "enhance" WARN to be "severe sounding enough" to > flag it for developer and continue while keeping the system alive as > much as possible.
There is no way out for the kernel to know if its a false positive or a real bug. And in the worst case, it can screw up a platform completely. I am still not sure if changing it to a WARN would be good idea. @Rafael: Thoughts ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
