Re: [patch] change WARN_ON back to "BUG: at ..."

2006-12-28 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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

Re: [patch] change WARN_ON back to "BUG: at ..."

2006-12-24 Thread Pavel Machek
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

Re: [patch] change WARN_ON back to "BUG: at ..."

2006-12-23 Thread Steven Rostedt
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

Re: [patch] change WARN_ON back to "BUG: at ..."

2006-12-23 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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

Re: [patch] change WARN_ON back to "BUG: at ..."

2006-12-22 Thread Steven Rostedt
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

Re: [patch] change WARN_ON back to "BUG: at ..."

2006-12-22 Thread Andrew Morton
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

Re: [patch] change WARN_ON back to "BUG: at ..."

2006-12-21 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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: [...]

Re: [patch] change WARN_ON back to "BUG: at ..."

2006-12-21 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
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

Re: [patch] change WARN_ON back to "BUG: at ..."

2006-12-21 Thread Arjan van de Ven
> + 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

[patch] change WARN_ON back to "BUG: at ..."

2006-12-21 Thread Ingo Molnar
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