From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750789AbWJYVnI (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:43:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750810AbWJYVnI (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:43:08 -0400 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:61893 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750789AbWJYVnF (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:43:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:42:57 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Ingo Molnar , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix generic WARN_ON message Message-ID: <20061025214257.GA2578@elf.ucw.cz> References: <4535902E.1000608@goop.org> <20061018055542.GA14784@elte.hu> <20061025100405.GB7658@elf.ucw.cz> <1161809722.3207.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1161809722.3207.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 2006-10-25 16:55:22, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 12:04 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > > > > > > A warning is a warning, not a BUG. > > > > > > > - printk("BUG: warning at %s:%d/%s()\n", __FILE__, \ > > > > + printk("WARNING at %s:%d %s()\n", __FILE__, \ > > > > > > i'm not really happy about this change. > > > > > > Firstly, most WARN_ON()s are /bugs/, not warnings ... If it's a real > > > warning, a KERN_INFO printk should be done. > > > > > > Secondly, the reason i changed it to the 'BUG: ...' format is that i > > > tried to make it easier for automated tools (and for users) to figure > > > out that a kernel bug happened. > > > > Well... but the message is really bad. It leads to users telling us "I > > hit BUG in kernel"... > > But they *did* hit a BUG. It just so happens that the BUG was fixable. > We want this reported because a WARN_ON should *never* be hit unless > there's a bug. If people start getting "WARNING" messages, they will > more likely not be reporting them. > > As Ingo already said, if it is just a "warning" then a normal printk > should be used. Fine, then why is the macro called WARN_ON()? That's certainly highly confusing. NONFATAL_BUG_ON()? I hate people reporting BUG (or BUG()) when they hit WARN_ON(), and current wording certainly makes it easy. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html