* Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But lots of people have now written downstream log-parsing tools
> > which might break due to this change, so I'm inclined to go with
> > Ingo's patch, and restore the old (il)logic.
>
> People should not be parsing syslog. If they do, they deserve
Hi!
> I've always felt that it is wrong (or at least misleading) that WARN_ON
> prints "BUG". It would have been better if it had said "WARNING", and only
> BUG_ON says "BUG".
>
> But lots of people have now written downstream log-parsing tools which
> might break due to this change, so I'm incl
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> i can whip up a patch for any of these conversions, but i dont think we
> need this flux right now.
>
I agree, it's not needed right now. But making BUG_ON panic seems to be a
good idea, but if you do make that change (and even if you don't), could
y
* Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WARN_ON is still a BUG, but we know enough about it that we can just
> cripple the system so that it doesn't break anything. [...]
well - a WARN_ON() can be /anything/. It is the same as BUG_ON(), but it
doesnt crash the box immediately and on purp
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 12:04 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I've always felt that it is wrong (or at least misleading) that WARN_ON
> prints "BUG". It would have been better if it had said "WARNING", and only
> BUG_ON says "BUG".
>
> But lots of people have now written downstream log-parsing tools
I've always felt that it is wrong (or at least misleading) that WARN_ON
prints "BUG". It would have been better if it had said "WARNING", and only
BUG_ON says "BUG".
But lots of people have now written downstream log-parsing tools which
might break due to this change, so I'm inclined to go with
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's the intent of WARN_ON? Presumably its different from BUG_ON,
> otherwise you could just use BUG_ON. Or if not, why not just have
> BUG_ON? I think in practice many WARN_ONs are clearly not intended to
> be as serious as BUG_ON: [...]
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Subject: [patch] change WARN_ON back to "BUG: at ..."
> From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> WARN_ON() ever triggering is a kernel bug. Do not try to paper over this
> fact by suggesting to the user that this is 'only' a warnin
> + printk("BUG: at %s:%d %s()\n", __FILE__,\
how about
BUG: Warning at
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via
http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org
-
To unsubscribe from
Subject: [patch] change WARN_ON back to "BUG: at ..."
From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
WARN_ON() ever triggering is a kernel bug. Do not try to paper over this
fact by suggesting to the user that this is 'only' a warning, as the
following rec
10 matches
Mail list logo